Lab: RS
Email address: barron.andrew1 <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: International Fiat bad
Instructor/commentator: Will Sears
Comments:

I think you need to get to the impact earlier. You do a good job defending international fiat is bad, but the voting issue almost feels like an afterthought in the last few seconds of the 1AR. It might help to budget more time for that - remember, theory becomes a much less effective time tradeoff if the neg doesn't have to win that it's not a voting issue.

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: Spending DA 2NC
Instructor/commentator: Sears
Comments: Good 2NC - lots of evidence read, and much easier to flow after you improved your breathing. Remember to breathe at punctuation - this will help cut down on gasping and whatnot. The main thing to improve content wise would be to incorporate a few choice analytic arguments into the speech. For example, you can effectively exploit the tension between their "space power good" and "air power bad" arguments to take out a lot of the advantage - spend more time comparing evidence and pointing out the flaws/tensions inherent in their arguments, as well as reading uniqueness and impact walls. Strong impact calculus at the top of the flow.

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: BMD Practice Debate 7-29
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Andrew- Good line of questioning about the kritik in the cross-ex about the 1NC – but press them harder on the issue of the role of the ballot – or how the alternative solves. Don’t back off when they provide a vague answer. Great 1AR – good job getting through the lightly covered flows quickly – and then reading a bunch of new offense and covering well on the krtik. Going off of 2AC numbering was also very very helpful. Be sure to respond to some of the more specific block arguments though. For example, I think while you do a great job extending 2AC offense – you need to respond to his claims about “local politics first”, or “space biopolitics” arguments better.

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Aliens Debate Practice debate - 8/1
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Andrew B. – Good cross-ex of the 1AC. I’m glad you tried to tie the affirmative down to defending certain things so that you could read T, and try to get offense. I would try to be a bit more explicit about what the affirmative allows you to read and what they don’t let you read. So instead of asking how should the judge evaluate the round, ask specific questions about whether you get certain disads or not. In the 2NC – you should be more explicit when the 2AC drops arguments. For example on the case debate, when the 2AC doesn’t respond to the realism debate you should flag this as offense for the kritik. I thought that the rest of your case debate was very very good, and your analysis of this in the context of the Schmitt K was very effective. I think that you could probably do more specific link analysis on the kritik. Instead of just saying that the link is reaching out to others, you should provide specific scenarios and impacts that could occur as a result of reaching out to aliens (i.e. aliens want to eat us turn etc.) Good 2NR – I liked that you used the net benefit to turn the case. You should be sure to highlight the fact that they do not have a single solvency deficit to the counterplan as a way to frame the debate for the judge.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Round A
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
Nice job with the pursuit of a politics link, although it was a bit transparent (probably due to disclosure, so not much you can do about that). After that line of questioning the CX became a bit directionless. Work on preparing CX in advance as if it were a speech. In the 2NC, good job reading a bunch of evidence on the case! The warming flow was particularly good, but I thought the answers to the solar flares advantage should have adjusted a bit to the 2AC argument that their argument was about reactor meltdowns, not solar flares killing people. On the K, you did a really nice job on the link, but dropped about half of their arguments (some carded, most not), including conditionality, which is no good. Most of these positions don’t require too much to answer; keep a better flow and use maybe an extra minute of prep time to tighten things up. Big-picture, your alternative could have used some more explanation. You are going all in on the link arguments that their representations are bad, which is a sustainable 2NR strategy, but early in the debate you should give yourself some more flexibility to emphasize either the links or the alternative in the 2NR.

This speech should be given with a great emphasis on conditionality. If they go for conditionality you’re likely to lose; if they don’t, you’re likely to win. You need to spend more time impacting your neg flexibility argument on conditionality, and trying to cross-apply other positions that may be beneficial to you. Once you’ve decided to commit a substantially greater amount of time to conditionality, the rest of the 2NR decision-making is altered. Perhaps you could extend the K more quickly than the DA / case strategy. In any case, I thought you did a pretty good job with the substantive strategy you went for. Nice job exploiting the dropped impact arguments on the politics DA. I also really liked the argument that WTO leverage would allow the US to pressure China on climate – that was smart. You should go more line-by-line on the politics DA – their argument about spending was first on the flow, but you answered it somewhere in the middle of your politics speech. You did a good job selectively picking arguments to extend on the case, but you need to answer their indict of neo-conservatives like Kagan.


Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice debate C
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2NC – Good job on case, but I think you could use some more arguments on the energy and terrorism flows (which I already said about the 1NC). Your speech on those two advantages sounded more like a 2NR – choosing just one argument. You should give yourself more options and increase your diversity of arguments, which also make the aff’s life harder.
I don’t think you answered a couple of arguments on the security K. (for example, I think you probably want to make more answers to the permutation besides just “these are the links” ; I also don’t think you answered the Gunning evidence – or at least, not in very much depth.) You could have Anthony read additional cards on the K in the 1NR, instead of trying to extend 2 DA’s.
2NR – why go for the K, when there’s only one argument on the Russia DA? You should spend time talking about why the K outweighs and turns the aff.
On case – you don’t have time to extend everything. One way around this would be just to spend time on solvency. On each advantage, though, you don’t have time to extend more than one argument well, so don’t try to go for everything.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate B
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
C-X: Remember, uniqueness does not disprove the link. The fact that China is weaponizing now doesn’t mean BMD won’t cause them to weaponize faster – you’re correct that it takes out the offense for their link turn, but it doesn’t disprove their link. Example, in a politics debate, neg wins SKFTA will pass definitively. Aff wins the plan is popular definitively/doesn’t cause SKFTA to not pass. You’re correct that they don’t garner * offense * because of it, but it still takes out the DA because it means regardless of what the aff does, SKFTA will pass. Same thing in the reverse here. It doesn’t * disprove * the link.
1AR: Don’t put the K on the bottom, you still get to it with a little less time than is idea. Similarly, you don’t have to put the Debris DA at the very top since that’s much less of a threat. I think you should get in-depth on the qualifications debate in the security K, it takes away a lot of ethos from their portrayal of threat creation if you cite well qualified, Pentagon officials who have definitive proof of these threats. On the case debate, I think you should go a little deeper on the heg solves conflict debate – the 2NC reads a long, 40 second card, so you should at least answer those warrants.

Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: Round 5
Instructor/commentator: Campbell
Comments:
Block organization was a little bit funky and probably could have been more focused. Think you spread yourself out a little much on the K. 1AR was pretty good but probably too involved on case with some more time necessary on some arguments on the K like the role of the ballot stuff, especially. This debate was tough to decide because their was much description of each team's evidence and little comparison between rebuttals. Ultimately, while the neg is winning some compelling link arguments, especially on environment, I think that the aff impacts have been justified empirically, especially the resource wars scenario and some hegemony stuff. This becomes somewhat of a tie break in the permutation debate, since I'm insure what is better - complete rejection and a more epistemological focus or use of the state to achieve a practical solution. Ultimately, I vote aff on the permutation because I don't think the negative has a very persuasive answer to the Guzzini evidence - rejecting security might be good, but if that rejection ignores realism altogether the alternative might be even worse then the status quo. The Bilgin evidence was also persusasive - neg, you should be attacking these pieces of evidence more and explaining why your links/alt disprove them. This combines persuasively with their resource wars scenario and some heg claims to form a NB to the perm that outweighs any of the impacts/turns of the K.

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:


Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:





EXAMPLE

Date of debate: June 23
Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!