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

Date of drill: 7/19

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator: Lab, QQ
Comments: kudos on your clarity and efficiency; keep working on creative interactions between your impact and theirs;

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: practice debate B
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC – Add some analytical arguments to the case frontlines, based on cross-ex or on pre-round preparation.
1NR – go a little bit slower on the CP overview. Also, I think you should go in 2AC order on this flow, rather than separating by CP/net benefit; also there’s no need to start with the permutation, since you have plenty of time.
More cards on the capabilities to implement SPL (within a short timeframe) or on comparisons between SPL and BMD.


Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate A
Instructor/commentator: Chander
Comments:
Phenomenal job on the case debate – you hard-numbered everything, multi-pointed each case arg, and did very good evidence comparison. A lot of 2A’s have a habit of just breezing through the case without any substantive analysis or refutation – this is the wrong approach. Stick to what you did in this debate.
On the off case positions you should do a better job of hard numbering, particularly when there’s a slew of analytical arguments that tend to blend in together. If you can, alternate analytic and evidenced arguments – it’s much easier to flow. On the CP, for example, flowing 3 permutations and then 2 analytical solvency deficit arguments all in a row is difficult, so it helps to slow down a bit on the permutation texts.
You should do a bit more impact calculus (just 10-15 seconds) on the impacts they concede from the 1NC and why it outweighs the DA.
In the 2AR, you go for the right arguments, and I think you’re in the right place strategically. One thing to watch out for is coordinating which arguments the 1AR goes for and couching your arguments in the language of the 1AR so it doesn’t seem as new.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Practice Debate Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Miranda
Comments:
2AC - The 2AC had solid coverage of every flow, which was awesome. You’re doing nice line by line on the case, but I think you’re relying a bit too much on this airpower internal link. Try to diversify your responses more, or group things if you think they warrant the same response. You should practice giving analytics off the top of your head because you have a tendency to slow down to conversational speed or take long pauses on the case. If you can increase your speed, this will allow you to have more time for the other offcase position. This 2AC on capitalism is very straight-up, but there’s not a super coherent strategy. As a Wayzata person, I can tell you that the Zizek perm is not a particularly good argument, and it really only works when people screw it up. You should read more impact turns if you want to impact turn and framework is probably not necessary. If you know the 2NR will be Cap, you should probably put even more on it, or use the rest of their strategy to mess with them.
2AR – No, case on top. Listen to your partner – you need to put your offense first so that you can win it. You ended up undercovering the case a bit and over-covering the DA in the 2AR, which could have been avoided. Make a point of connection on the link uniqueness argument – slow down and say “we will win the debate here”. The 2AR had the correct focus, which was good. Try to make your speaking voice more steady in rebuttals – you slow down, speed up, and pause a lot. However, your arguments were solid, which is probably more important anyway.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: rd 3
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
I think the Cp solves the majority (if not all) of the aff. It spurs the innovation. Albeit less efficient, perhaps, there is no linear impact distinction as to why I should care about this solvency deficit.

Although I think the neg wins a risk of the debris DA, the 2ar is correct in pointing out that the neg failed to extend an impact.

There may be a small aff arg about why SPS allow for satellites to harden or move out of the way – but I’m not sure this is in the 1ar and so am willing to say that CP probably solves this (since it seems as if it is simply a question of energy that LSP could provide)

The original SKFTA impact is a big yes/no debate. However, I think the aff’s evidence is a bit better that the impacts on relations would be neutral at best, if not negative.

I think the eng is right that the aff failed to highlight some of the better parts of the card about this emboldening South Korea, but I do think there is a sufficient enough warrant in the evidence to believe there is a significant risk of SK, in the short term, lashing out against NK and sparking a global war.

I feel in other debates a bigger debris story may have outweighed this, but a lack of explanation in this 2nr makes me feel that it would be interventionist to overlook the 2ar impact comparisons about the quickness of the adventurist lashout and impact.


Date of debate:

Debating on: 8/9
Instructor/commentator: Campbell
Comments:
Great block and solid job in the 1nr. Should've covered the india add on more explicitly (or impact turned it!) Loved your swag/aggressiveness in cross ex and absent the organization failures at times in the 1nr, you debated really well. Good job.

Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: Tournament debate 5 - neg vs. McMann / Wright
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
I voted aff on the argument that China’s cut off of rare earth metals would cause the US to initiate a conflict with China. The neg was persuasive on the argument that responding to the lack of rare earth metals with a new, offshore balancing grand strategy would be more peaceful (because current primacy causes hostile balancing and there’d be no negative international ramifications to the decline of US hegemony), but I thought the neg didn’t have a scenario for this happening given the fact that the US wouldn’t accept its decline.

Try to make your K arguments more tailored to the debate. Some of the arguments you made against impact calculus and framework were pretty compelling, but seemed a little cookie-cutter. When it came time to make link analysis, I thought you came up a little short in responding to the aff argument that the aff predicted a US lashout against China after China made an economics-based decision (and thus didn’t link to the Pan K) and I didn’t think the asteroids link argument was very well explained.


Date of debate: 8/13

Debating on: quarters
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
I voted neg. The neg’s indicts of the way the aff’s authors produced their knowledge about the world served as unanswered terminal impact defense to the aff’s whole case, and the neg’s value to life argument was a point of offense unanswered in the 1ar.

I didn’t consider these arguments too much in my decision, but I think the neg was also ahead on the ability of the alternative to solve most of the advantages (analytical soft power argument), a number of other impact defense arguments (reject ‘greatest magnitude’ framing and specific scenarios are logically flawed since they’re less likely than more abstract scenarios), and a link argument about inevitability justifying violent systems. I was a little more unsure about whether the neg won their argument about the aff representations creating the 1ac harms, but that wasn’t super important given the unanswered epistemology indicts.

1nr: You need to be more efficient, not just in terms of speaking more fluidly, but also in terms of deciding which cards to read. Three permutation cards on the CP was a bit of overkill given the time pressure of your speech, and I thought you could have used several more cards about China not being evil / their motive for building space weapons. Also, I think some terminal impact defense to hegemony should have been explicitly extended in the block to set up the 2nr.

Your speech wasn’t bad by any means, but I think the 2ac was so deep on the case that your positions weren’t really a credible 2nr strategy. If the 2nc needs to extend the K for all 8 minutes, I’d recommend you go primarily for case defense. Ideally, the 2nc could extend a few case arguments and maybe the CP after spending 6 minutes or so on the K.



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!