Lab: RS
Email address: alafontant12 <at> kentdenver <dot> org

Date of debate: 7-22

Debating on: Theory Mini Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Anthony - good 2nr – your impacting of education > fairness was very persuasive – and you responded to the 1AR arguments well. Make sure that you maintain a consistent interpretation from the 2NC and explain offensively why your interpretation was best so you can craft your vision of debate to the judge.

Date of debate: 7/27

Debating on: Spending DA - 2AC
Instructor/commentator: Sears
Comments: Good 2AC, but try to condense your impact calculus more. We talked about bundling the 2 or 3 different warrants for why the case accesses the air power impact into one argument at the top of the flow to save time. Speaking wise, clear but could be a little louder - it's always good to work on projecting.

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: BMD Practice Debate
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Anthony – great job in the 2AC – very fast and clear – be sure when grouping the case flows that you don’t make the flow even more complicated by grouping 1 & 3 or 2 & 4. Just make the claim once and then explain why it answers their other arguments. I think you did a very good job weighing your affirmative in the 2AR – but be sure to respond to the specific link analysis.


Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Practice Debate Aliens
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
Anthony – in the 1NC be sure to label your arguments. For example, say “next off the disad”, so that the judge is on the same page as you to begin with. I think that a better way to frame the framework argument in the 1NC is to say that the aff should not be able to weigh their discourse or methodology-based advantages. For 2AC Cross-ex, don’t allow the affirmative to dictate whether they defend the plan or not. You should back them into a corner and ask a string of questions that require them to answer in a way that’s conducive to your strategy. Try not to take 1NR prep if possible – use your prep time during the 2NC effectively so that you don’t allow the 1AR time to prep his answers to the 2NC. Your impact calculus in the 1NR was good – but be sure not to make redundant arguments on the line by line – They don’t make any uniqueness presses so you don’t need to spend the time to read a 3 card uniqueness wall. I think that your analysis on the PIC was actually very good – especially your turns case arguments. Because I think that both the framework and spending DA were undercovered, I think giving a 5 minute 1NR on the PIC might have been a better strategy.


Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Round A
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
Nice job being extremely clear – your speech was very enjoyable to flow. You may not have any other option, but I’d consider finding some offense other than the spending DA, which, in addition to not being very good under normal conditions, is much worse against an aff that spends so little money. On case, you need to answer their nuclear meltdowns impact scenario – I imagine there’s a bunch of good stuff in the wake of the Japan business. You should have some more knowledge about the strato-sats – the question about the atmosphere impeding their observation ability was a bad one for you.

You need to remember to kick the positions that were originally at the top of the 1NR. It’s a bit disconcerting when you skip 2 flows at the beginning of your speech, plus they’d cross-applied spending link take-outs as reasons the politics link is untrue. I thought your impact business at the top of politics was good. The rest of the debate was a bit perplexing. As far as I could tell, there was only one card in the 2AC – a link turn – and a bunch of analytical arguments. Reading 5 new uniqueness cards and 3 new political capital key cards seems a bit disproportionate. I also thought you jumped around the line by line quite a bit, imposing a structure of ‘uniqueness debate’, ‘link debate’, ‘internal link debate’ that didn’t exist in the 2AC. Going rigidly by the 2AC order would help reduce the excess I mentioned earlier. Also, I’d be a proponent of kicking the spending DA offensively. Concede their military trade-off argument, read a card that even small military budget cuts kill heg (I know they must be in the spending generic file), and cross-apply the Kagan card from case. That puts a bunch more pressure on the 1AR, and it’s almost impossible for them to get offense there.


Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: practice debate C
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC – Add some analytical arguments to the case frontlines. Also, you should make internal link defense arguments to the energy and terrorism advantages, rather than just impact defense. At the very least, add a few more types of arguments on each of these advantages – your responses are not very diverse.
1NR – good speech – but I think it would be better if you were only going for one of the DA’s. Talk to your partner about block division- it’s very tough for a 1NR to cover 2 separate off case positions completely, unless one of them has maybe only one argument. You sound good and you are covering the aff arguments on both, but you could be a lot stronger and read more cards if you only had to deal with one of them (along with conditionality). Also, on the Russia DA, you didn’t answer the 2AC arguments in order. Be sure you’re flowing the 2AC in order so you can respond in the same structure. Also, your answers to “collapse in oil prices inevitable” could be better. Otherwise, very good .

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate B
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
2AC: The 2AC was very good, and very clear, even in the warrants of the cards which is always nice to hear. I think you should attack the I/L’s on the politics debate more – you have a free trade scenario on case, so doing some internal link analysis and takeouts for SKFTA would be more beneficial than reading fiat solves the link/other random 2 second analytics. These analytics are easy to answer and often, even if conceded, judges may be hesitant to vote on them. But smart, analytic I/L presses are much more difficult to answer by the negative. Also, the logical policy-maker argument is the better form of all the bad ones (fiat solves link, vote no, etc,) so if you do really want to make one of those, go with that one.
2AR: Your 2AR strategy is definitely the right one. Focusing on inevitability + other nations as solvency deficit is the correct approach. I would suggest moving the ‘overview’ to a more applicable place – you tend to repeat yourself. Instead, scrap the overview, put the analysis where it belongs on the flow. I think you’ll be more coherent and save time in the process. Excellent 2AR overall.

Date of debate: 8/5

Debating on: 2ac on case
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments: Good speech with really nice understanding of the 1AC and a good grasp of the flaws in the 1NC evidence. Going forward, I'd try to make the same extensions and indicts more quickly, and focus on reading cards on important points of tension. Unlike many affs, where the advantages are conceptually solid and the 2ac can blow through the case debate, there are serious doubts in the literature about these case advantages. Absent a serious investment in new 2ac evidence on the case--especially in response to such a deep, diverse attack, you're putting yourself in poor position for what will probably become a very card-heavy case turn debate.

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:





EXAMPLE

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