Lab: KM
Email address: a.chen <at> live <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: Helium-3 2NC
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn
Comments:
Be louder! It will help with confidence and persuasion. Start out by extending your argument, THEN answer what they said. Give more detail in explaining your argument. Good argument about how China just made a preliminary feasibility study - highlight that text in the 1NC. Good job picking and choosing your best arguments. Invest more in the arguments you choose to extend.

Date of debate: 7/21

Debating on: T Clash Drill -- clash drill
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Include a voting issue -- you need to explain why limits or precision mean they should lose the round.
Definitely read the third card -- you need to preempt their args about the development being legal.
DOn't read the second card -- it's not very good and pretty obvious.
Err on the side of making t-shells longer
A) Short shells communicate you don't care about the round.

Date of debate: 7/26

Debating on: KORUS Clash Drills
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
-- impx calc was really good -- especially saying tf outwieghs. Xtnd turns case arg.
-- skfta boosts heg k 2 trade stuff needs an impx. Probably just want to do it on the turns case stuff.
-- say pc low is not relevant.
-- Make a few more args on intrinsicness.
-- I think you want a more on point answer to obama can forge a consensus
-- On fiat solves the link -- don't just say fiat is bad, make a more on point response.
-- On econ doesn't cause war, try to give a more in depth explanation of your impx with in depth reasons to prefer your args.

Date of debate: 7/28

Debating on: Practice Debate
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
Paperless debate is tough, so I completely understand - but remember a lot of judges run prep time until the other team has the flashdrive in their hand. So at least for the 1NC you have 3 minutes of c-x and the 1AC to get it ready and onto the flashdrive, so don't forget.
Enunicate a little more on T, or maybe go just a tad bit slower - since it's entirely analytical arguments, it can be tough to get it all down. The other thing I suggest is moving the laptop lower in terms of elevation and maybe a little more to the side so it doesn't block your voice. It's hard to speak through your laptop.
Remember to pay attention to what cards the 1AC read - you don't have to re-read the Mead card.
1NR -- you have a good instinct in pre-empting the T/Kritik contradition, so I'd suggest spending some more time properly resolving the debate in a way that favors you and puts the 1AR in a double bind. Good 1NR overall, but I suggest reading some more cards on things like warming.

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Space mil 2ac
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
-- You don't need to make a cross app.
-- Inevitability is very important -- if it's not inevitable it's much easier for the neg to win space weapons bad.
-- When to straight turn a disad
A) When they read like 10 disads, straight turn the da you don't think they want to go for.
B) You will lose if they go for another disad.
C) You have the "goods" on their disad.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: SPS neg - practice debate 4
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:

1NC
- It took a LONG time for your 1NC to start. In these debates you should have the 1NC copied to the jump drive and ready to hand over the instant the 1AC finishes. And you should know how many off case there are, and what order the case pages will be.
- Your reading is pretty good, but could be a little bit louder. Try to project more. It’ll be easier to follow and more persuasive.
- I think you should try to highlight down some of the 1NC, or read less evidence in some places. You had very little time on the case – that is going to make it basically impossible to go for the substantive strategy unless you win the CP solves 100%. It’s also troublesome that the CP probably links to both the potential net benefits.

1NR
- You do a reasonably good job trying to win this T argument, but you’re fighting a massive uphill battle here. It’s just an unreasonable argument. You’re doing some good work to win that T matters in general, but you’re not establishing a viable link to those arguments. You need to go line by line to address each aff argument, because several of them were dropped and are probably sufficient to beat this argument.
- On the case, it’s not ideal to just read new evidence. You need to develop the arguments that were in the 1NC and supplement them with maybe a few new cards.
- For future 1NRs, try and severely limit your reading of new evidence - at least for a while. You need to extend and explain your existing arguments before you move on to reading new cards.


Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament round #4
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1AR – Good job on the Russia DA, but try not to repeat yourself too much – just make the arguments and move on. You should also point out that they’ve answered two of these arguments incorrectly. Y’all need more specific answers to the ice age turn, especially in the 1AR. Giving reasons that warming outweighs is a good start ,but you need some defense to the substance of the turn as well. If you’re extending the politics DA to the CP, you need to extend an impact. I’m also not sure why you’re bothering to go for the aerospace advantage – you haven’t given a reason the CP doesn’t solve it.
RFD: The negative does not extend defense to the warming advantage. Warming is an existential threat that outweighs the Russia DA, against which there is some mitigation.

Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: tournament round 6 - neg vs. Huang-Wyzykowski
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
I voted aff, largely on the argument that realism is inevitable. I think that throws the alternative’s ability to open a new political space into question and, more importantly, serves as a framework for evaluating the intentions of various states. I think the aff was better at debating about the intentions of Iran and China. If they’re crazy and/or evil, it seems like we ought to develop the capabilities to defeat and/or dissuade them.

Make sure to go line-by-line in the 2nr – missing the realism argument was really troublesome for you in this debate. Also, be as specific as possible with regard to their advantage areas – even when you go for a K, you need to explain it in the context of their advantages.


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!