Lab: CO
Email address: soccer_2812 at yahoo dot com

Date of debate: 7/19

Debating on: DA/Case Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator: Miranda Ehrlich
Comments:
To improve, you should extend more cards on case that directly correspond to 1NC arguments. You’re doing a good job with line by line on the case, but make sure you’re using the cards from the 1AC as offensively as possible. I liked the fact that you embedded analytics between the cards on the DA but it was tough to flow the warrants of those analytics – you should slow down on those arguments. This goes for the case as well. Overall, though, a solid 2AC.

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: private actor fiat
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2NC is probably a bit too fast. Theory debates are already pretty tough to flow, so even though you’re perfectly clear there’s just no way to get some of the information.

2NR was better on this front. Very flowable, and super efficient. You got a lot of arguments out there quickly.

The biggest problem with the content of your argument is that you were forced to defend private actor fiat. You did a fine job with a tough argument, but maybe be a little more upfront about the difficulties defending your claim.

Date of debate: 7/27

Debating on: space mil clash drill
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2NC
I think you should slow down slightly. It's not even that you're unclear, it's just that the words blur together a bit and the listener has to really concentrate to extract meaning. And that concentration distracts from actually flowing the arguments.
For the content of the speech I thought you were extremely smart on quite a few arguments, but didn't really take advantage of the time advantage of the block. You want to overwhelm the aff on some issues, but instead you just covered everything reasonably well. You had time left over - that would definitely be well used doing a lot more work on the inevitability debate, and on winning one of your turns conclusively.

2NR
The 2NR is really good at articulating a single narrative that puts together all the offense in the debate. The only problem is that this ends up bleeding together a little bit too much. You don't ever fully develop any one argument because you jump on to the next one. Or jump back to a previous one.
I really like the connections that you're drawing. Using soft power as an implicit uniqueness claim against weaponization inevitable is solid, and using the 'use or lose' argument to bolster the soft power claim is also really smart. The key thing is just to cleanly win each of these arguments independently before you try to connect them all together.

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: 2NC on case vs. space mil aff
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn
Comments:
Good job discussing the warrants in your cards and reading additional cards when appropriate. You are also very persuasive - it helps later in your speech when you move your computer so it's not directly in front of your face. Make sure you answer the argument that soft power is low now. In general, you could use more interaction with the arguments and evidence in the 2AC. In addition to explaining your warrants, address the aff's warrants and talk about why your evidence is better than theirs.

Date of debate: Practice Debate

Debating on: Neg
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
2NC - wouldn't extend this bad T violation that is not a viable 2NR option. it played its purpose when the 2AC spent a ton of time on it - extra time could be used developing arguments on case or making the disad a lot bigger and external to the case to ensure that disad+case is a viable 2NR outside of the counterplan.

2NR - good choice on going for the counterplan. Impact the disad in relation to the solvency deficits and without an impact external to the case you need to be doing a lot more analysis on the internal links to the impacts that the affirmative reads and explaining why you access them but the disad prevents them from accessing it.

Date of debate: 8/3 - Rd 3 Practice Debates

Debating on: Neg vs. RS Paulson/Kaul (BMD Aff)
Instructor/commentator: Quinn
Comments: Good strategic choice in the 2NR, but your execution of the K could've been better; this might be a good 2NR to redo in the future; the 1AC CX was okay, but you were telegraphing K questions and not focusing enough on the scenarios for rogue action/conflict where lots of your links for the K will arise; your clarity at times in the 2NC and 2NR was a bit muted - you're fast, but when you speed through explanations at times sounds blurry or blippy; need to read more external terminal impacts to soft power in the 2NC;

Date of debate: August 3, 2011

Debating on: Practice Debate Aff vs. QQ Reddy
Instructor/commentator: Varsha
Comments:
1ac advice – double check your 1ac before you start. It was missing a few cards and was a bit out of order. You should double check all of that.
x-x. you seemed unsure why brilliant pebbles wasn’t happening now and some of the internal links into your advantages.
1ar advice – you’re a little unclear in your speech. It’d be better to slow down and get more flowed than have arguments get missed. I think your overall time allocation per argument was pretty good although there are places you could be a little more efficient. On the K, remember to answer the new Pan link and value to life on Security. Also, you pretty much go all in on the permutation in the 1ar, which isn’t the worst idea but then you need to say which perm you’re extending, answer that it gets coopted and the Owen card.


Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: aff missile defense
Instructor/commentator: Ken Strange
Comments: 1.1AC had a full minute left. Before you use that to add cards, slow down! There are parts that are really hard to understand. You want anumber of the claims to be very clear so you can easily reference them in when used to answer arguments later in the debate. 2. 1AR goes for some things that seem unnecessary/counterproductive: for example, the perm on the CP All you want here is the offense; the perm just gets in the way of that. 3. 1AR goes for things without answering the neg responses. I pointed this out after the round on conditionality -- you are wasting time claiming this as a voter without answering the counter standard, real world, education, perms etc 4. You need to be more thorough on the K - you try to answer the threat construction part, but never respond to the argument that military solutions only precipitate more military responses (so even if threats are real, military solutions only make them worse). The case args and much could have been said here, but isn't. It was pretty obvious that this is what 2NR would be going for, and deserved more time.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament Rd 3 2N
Instructor/commentator: Mulholand
Comments:
You should focus on addressing the satellite hardening advantage in the 2NR since it's insulated from your heg defense and the CP doesn't really address it. Also, you should try and have an external impact to the net benefit, to give yourself the ability to do more "net benefit outweighs the solvency deficit" impact calculus in the 2NR. Start with your offense in the 2NR (disad before the case).
RFD: The wind power cp doesn’t solve the satellite hardening advantage, which has a US-China space war impact that’s insulated from the Neg’s heg defense. The link to the net benefit is also shaky since the Neg doesn’t clearly establish that the plan would actually require 100,000 launches (that evidence is old, the plan is just a single demonstration, etc.). The plan could be small enough that it doesn’t incur the link but substantial enough that it would generate the satellite hardening tech needed to avert a catastrophic war that the Neg can’t access.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on:Round 4
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
I voted affirmative – I think that the aff wins their hegemony/China deterrence advantage, and the link defense on the politics disadvantage.
Hegemony
The aff wins that space deterrence is key to solve China modernization and first strike, and that US-Russia miscalculation happens if we don’t have BMD. Neg’s soft power turns aren’t impacted in terms of the case – be sure to explain how they mitigate the aff’s ability to solve for space leadership. I think the aff does a sufficient job of explaining why military hard power in space is the key internal link for their impacts, not international cooperation. The neg also concedes that hard power is a prerequisite for international credibility which means the affirmative is the only way to facilitate a transition to space hegemony.
Politics
Aff wins that the armed service committee likes the plan and that they are key to the agenda. I don’t think there was an answer in the 2NR. Be sure to weigh your link about foreign countries getting upset in the context of the US Senate and provide a warrant for why angering other countries would derail the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. Impact calculus could be a bit better on both sides – be sure to explain not just why your impact is fast or big but explain how it interacts with the other teams’ impacts.


Date of debate: 8/10


Debating on: Neg Round 5


Instructor/commentator: Zach R


Comments:

RFD:

The aff characterizes the neg’s interpretation evidence as including the facilitation of development in space, thus meeting the violation by facilitating development through granting property rights. The 1NR does not challenge this we meet, and the 2NR’s explanation is relatively shallow, doing little more than repeating the violation on this part of the debate. I’m inclined to lean with the aff before reading any evidence, but to satisfy my curiosity I look at the card anyways, and believe that while it is not especially clear on what types of facilitation are legitimate, facilitation is a type of development. Thus, absent more analysis, I believe the aff meets the interpretation. The neg still has extra T (which somehow morphed from effects T in the block) and the mesosphere violation, but the relative lack of explanation on either of these violations in the 2NR and no explanation on why I should vote for them makes me hesitant to vote neg. While the aff should certainly answer these smaller arguments on point in both the 1AR in 2AR, they likely meet them if the act of facilitation is development in and of itself. Ultimately, I don’t think the neg wins a violation with any explanation of a voting issue attached to it, and thus I vote aff.

EXAMPLE

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