Lab: RS
Email address: scypherhoth <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/22

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

You have the right idea going into this speech - you extend the right defensive arguments, you just need to extend some more offense. After the speech, you don't have a lot of arguments left about why international fiat is good, as opposed to just "not bad."

Time allocation on theory is tough in the 2NR - it might be helpful to write out more of the speech ahead of time.

Careful on "best policy option!" This can be a dangerous argument for the neg - it can mess with your politics DA and other perms.

Date of debate: July 27, 2011

Debating on: Tradeoff 2NC
Instructor/commentator: Varsha
Comments:
Couple of suggestions. You should try to organize your speech by the 2AC a bit more. You did a good job of reading walls of evidence, but it wasn't always clear what argument you were responding to from the 2AC. Be a bit more careful about which cards you read for your uniqueness extensions. You read a card that the House was definitely not going to touch the military budget to win that F-35s were still around now, but that also takes out a lot of your internal link claims. Also remember to read disad turns the case. Otherwise, nice job!

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: Practice Debate BMD Aff
Instructor/commentator:Tatsuro
Comments:
Andrew H. – Be sure to write down some questions before 1AC according to your negative strategy so you can be prepared for cross-ex. Instead of asking super specific questions about nuclear missiles or EMPs, try to ask questions that are pointed to get links for your disads or kritiks. Good explanation of T in the 2NC – I especially liked the caselist you gave – but be sure you answer it in an orderly fashion by 2AC order though to maintain organization. On the kritik in the 2NC – be sure to explain your space links in the context of the affirmative. I agree with your 2NC claim that your cards are probably specific, but without explanation, there isn’t really a reason to prefer your link claims. Don’t just assert that the alternative solves in the 2NR – make sure you explain what exactly the alternative does and how it interacts with the aff/aff impacts. Without a concrete explanation of a K alt in the 2NR – it’s harder to win a debate when the aff has any sort of solvency. This also applies to a lot of arguments you extend – instead of just saying they were explained in the block – be sure to actually reexplain and impact all of their arguments.

Date of debate: 8-1

Debating on: Aliens Practice Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Your explanation of individual arguments is very good, but be sure to answer all of the 2NC arguments. For example, your offense about Schmitt is pretty good, but you need to respond to the 2NC VTL claims and turns case claims instead of just extending your arguments. Be sure to talk with your partner ahead of time to determine what arguments he’s going to go for in the 2AR so you can extend those arguments, so the 2AR isn’t as new.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Round B
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
How is the 1AC science fiction? It doesn’t posit an alternative reality. There seems to be a mismatch between the 2 aff contentions. Don’t answer their argument about whether looking for ET is good so simply. ‘If we win the plan is bad, we win’ – your answer to that shouldn’t be just ‘yes’, but more of what Adam was saying about how the discourse mattered. Give more explanation on other issues too – why doesn’t it matter whether aliens exist?

Three big-picture comments: 1) You should give the 1AR with the goal of making them not go for coercion – recognize that’s the place you’re the most behind (maybe extend theory?); 2) Preserve good ethos! Don’t mumble about how bad your speech is – that is a self-fulfilling prophecy; 3) Prepare your whole speech yourself. If you need some more prep time to think about CP or T arguments, take it, but you want your partner to flow the 1AR instead of preparing a later part of your speech. You said “go ahead and extend” a bunch of times, which is quite inefficient. Make sure that you understand what you say; lots of your arguments are very close to being good, but you need to make sure that you have an argument / warrant / impact. For example, what does the argument about rock-paper-scissors mean? Make new arguments against coercion! Do you best to hide their newness by framing them as responses to new 2NC positions ("they said X, but <card>").


Date of debate: 8/2

Debating on: Interlab Practice Debate D
Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
Needs more vocal variety and rhetorical force to the 1AC. Answer CX questions with confidence and try to project a clear command of the subject matter. 1AR: Need to seriously engage the cap k, its not enough to simply say that "socialism sucks", those things need to be more clearly connected to an impact. Should do drills to force yourself to include a warrant after every claim you make in the 1AR.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: neg vs ssp
Instructor/commentator: Ken Strange
Comments: 1. So why the heated CX about how much energy the plan would produce. This didn't seem to have any thing to do with the debate. Purpose of CX is to help the speeches. Questions about the cost of the plan, etc would help the DA, Q's about tech assumptions would help the solvency arguments, Q's pointing out how they securitize the economy would help the K, as would fleshing out the warming impacts. 2. You need a more developed position on the importance of discourse/reps and the framing of the decision -- discourse is prior etc. All of this would really help the K. 3. An impact on how securitizing only makes war more likely would help the balancing of the K vs case claims. 4. The time spent on solvency in 2NR doesn't seem worthwhile. It's not absolute and it's notreally an additive position with the K. 4. You have to flow the 1AR comprehensively and address all the arguments -- it was only with my prompt that you said anything about severing discourse.

Date of debate: 8/11

Debating on: Round 7
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
1nc you double turn – the Schmitt argument says we need to otherize and alienate them – then you read a sci fi bad arg that says you otherize
2ac should have extended logocentric though bad and that alien languages are critical - that language is inherently maleable those cards answer T brightline arguments and fuel reasonability - the third contention explicitly states language is inherently interpretive
always make a perm DO BOTH – you ONLY make intrinsicness arguments on BOTH flows
Case – you do a fairly decent job on case – better answer of Schmitt
2NC C-X – ROFLCOPTER you just stole the c-x 1:30 in
Block
DOUBLE TURNNNN – shmitt security good args and alien otherization bad args yo!!!
2nc on T
not a very clear division between the two flows – got messy
1ar
should have extended functional competition – the neg block doesn’t respond to this at all
should have gone for the double turn – impact that
okay, you have a conceded cap scenario on heg – impact that; also you need to provide uniqueness which isn’t there
on t, need to answer you don’t meet your own interpretation and that there’s a t version of your case
I think you have several good arguments on the education analysis on case, and they’re certainly true – however, you have to technically on the flow answer some of their arguments
NEGATIVE TEAM SHOULD NOT TALK LOUDLY DURING THE 2AR
RFD:
Neg wins.
1AR doesn’t extend an interpretation on topicality which is problematic because even if you’re right on the standards debate, it’s the only interpretation.


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!