Lab: QQ
Email address: yiyiyier99 <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: Hegemony impact vs. Global Warming
Instructor/commentator: QQ
Comments: nice internal structure/numbering; nice way of starting with your own impact in the lettering; stylistics - open your mouth and practice using overemphasis drills;

Date of debate: 7/27

Debating on: Spending DA - 2AC
Instructor/commentator: Sears
Comments: Good 2AC - strong balance of smart analytics and cards. You can get more of an advantage out of your speed if you make less subpointed analytics and replace some of them with cards - it's always good to make analytics, but in this 2AC I think you could use more on "F-35s bad" as well as a card for your predictive link take out that you make at the end of the speech.

Date of debate: 8-3

Debating on: Practice Debate B
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
-Good, fast, clear 2AC. I think you can group arguments a bit more to save time on the case debate.
-2AR – I liked that you used the case very heavily as a disadvantage to the kritik. I also really liked that you weighed heavily on your environment advantage against the kritik. However, I think that there is definitely a better way to explain the permutation than to say that we can rethink the methodology for the aff – instead you might want to frame it as a way to use policy solutions, but to reject security logic – not that because you kicked your hegemony advantage, you don’t link. I think you also need to explain the reps don’t shape reality argument better. Why do you win the debate if you win this specific argument?

Date of debate: August 3

Debating on: Aff -- Practice Debate 3
Instructor/commentator: Kaczmarek
Comments: Your coverage in the 2AC was a little uneven. Looking back, it seems like there were some arguments (the China CP in particular) where you put out many more arguments, and spent a lot more time, than the neg did. As a good rule of thumb, other than maybe for T, don't spend 2-3 times longer on any argument then the 1NC did. In a way, you baited the neg into kicking China by wasting so much time on it. It isn't really a proof of abuse if you make the choice to over cover an argument. I would have liked it if you had realized and commented more on the tension between the neg arguments, and if you had made more of the perm of the STEM CP (which may be the best example of a non-competitive CP I've seen in years), at least as it was debated here. The 2AR does what needs doing. Your voice is quite pleasant to listen to.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate E
Instructor/commentator: Chander
1NC: I’d suggest doing some speaking drills that improve stamina; you start out pretty clear and loud, but towards the end you seem to struggle slightly. And luckily, this room was pretty small, but I can definitely imagine a scenario in which the judge, sitting at the back of a larger classroom, would have some difficulty hearing/following.
1NC C-X: It’s okay to politely suggest you’ve heard enough of their answer, etc. Stick to your guns – your instinct is usually correct. Also, when you do recognize you’ve messed up, it’s better to admit it and find a way to remedy it (i.e. writing the CP text wrong in this instance) rather than pretending you didn’t. You should admit it’s written incorrectly, announce that you’ll change it in the next speech, and the 2NC can give reasons for why that’s okay.
1NR: I think in this debate you would benefit by addressing the K more, since that seems to be the primary 2NR strategy. The 2AC put a significant amount of answers, and you don’t gain much by going for the DA in addition to that. So instead, extend the case arguments you did, explain why those are representation/methodology links and why each one individually turns the case, and spend the rest of the time on the K answering the policy paralysis args, etc. The 2N can even give you more cards to read, if need be.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament Rd 4 2A
Instructor/commentator: Mulholand

The central message of this 2AR needs to be “try or die – high magnitude/high probability impacts outweigh shorter timeframe impacts with a worse probability/timeframe.” This is especially true given the 2NR’s emphasis on “short term impacts outweigh since intervening actors can address far off problems.” This did make it into the end of the 2AR, but it was the central narrative of the 2NR (on the impact calc, the case debate, the link to the disad, etc.). You also need to answer the “turns case” argument that decline would cause us to end spending for colonization. The coercion argument would help you if it said existential risks always outweigh (magnitude outweighs probability/timeframe), but it’s not as helpful the way it’s explained in the 2AR – as weigh consequences – since the Neg’s conceding that and saying there’s bigger negative consequences to voting Aff. I like the attempt to extend space militarization offense, but you need to answer the negative’s claim that militarization is inevitable since it means the status quo solves your offense (you need a reason doing it sooner is better than waiting for it to happen inevitably).
This debate was very close. If either side is able to more effectively argue either timeframe outweighs or try or die, that could swing the debate. That said, I come down Neg in this one. The primary reasons for this are: the status quo can solve the threats the Aff references, the link happens faster than the link turn, and the disad turns the case. To solve the first problem, the 2AR should choose 1 impact (instead of extending a bunch) and explain why it’s really fast and can’t be solved by anything other than doing the plan now. To address the second problem, the 2AR needs to tie the jobs link turn to some sort of perception argument that stimulus would boost investor/consumer confidence in the short term, rather than quickly sparking another ratings downgrade. To address the third problem, the 2AR needs to explicitly answer the Neg’s claim that economic collapse causes us to cut off funding for colonization.

Date of debate: 8/10
Debating on: Round 1
Instructor/commentator: Markovich
Dropped Solvency advocates bad theory is dropped. It is developed as a reason to reject the team. The neg never challenges this characterization.

Date of debate:

Debating on:

Date of debate:

Debating on:

Date of debate:

Debating on:


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