Lab: CO
Email address: b.shariff18 <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/19

Debating on: SSP Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator: Crowe
Comments:
Might want to spend a tiny bit more time on the case. Forty-five seconds isn't a ton of time to take out an entire advantage!
Start off a bit slower, please. It helps the judge get accustomed to your voice and general speaking style, then you can quickly build up speed. The beginning of your speech was a bit unclear, but 15 seconds in, you were good!
Nice job at "compartmentalizing" the debate. I like when debaters say "now onto the link debate" and do all their work there. Just make sure that's a coherent organization of the arguments. If they made link arguments all over the 2AC, it might be better to answer some of it individually.
Maybe switch the order of the 2NR? Putting the DA last (your only offense) is a bit risky. Put it first, win the super-huge impact outweighs the case, then if you undercover the case, you still have a shot at winning! If do ok on the case, but undercover the DA, you're toast! Remember - this is a small 2NR. You'll usually be going for as many as 5x as many arguments in roughly 3x the speech time.
Nice job!

Date of debate:

Debating on: Case Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator: Group
Comments:
2NC
  • 2NC ran out of time a bit – maybe should have not gone for a few
    • 2AC spent a lot of time on the decreases deterrence argument
    • It doesn’t necessarily need to be extended
    • Could be folded into other arguments
  • Soft power was emphasized
  • Too much reliance on “the only reason China is militarizing is because they think we’ve started it”
  • Uniqueness counterplan! Definitely could supplement
  • Explain more in the 2NC

2NR
  • Maybe went for too much
    • More on inevitability
    • Need to win this claim in order to win all of the turns
  • Random fillers
    • Game over
    • We’re gonna win
    • Uniquely
  • More focus
  • Pick a few turns and explain them more, don’t go for all of them

Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: Space Militarization Aff
Instructor/commentator: Miranda
Comments:
In the 1AC, go slightly slower on tags – they are occasionally tough to flow. The 1AR was solid, but you need to cover the 2AC’s mistakes more. For example, the dropped impact defense on hegemony is quite dangerous to the 2AR strategy – you need to answer all of the warrants in the Layne evidence. Briefly cross-applying something about “hotspots” is not responsive. Make sure you always extend warrants with your claims – you’re doing this in some places, but you need to do it ALWAYS. The impact calc at the bottom of the speech wasn’t super necessary – instead, you should have used the extra time to make internal link comparisons and comparative arguments on the uniqueness debate. Your hegemony argument could be augmented greatly with some discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of hegemony, especially realism. Apply it to the negative’s specific scenarios. Your impact argument should have two levels—deterrence, and the ability to actually strike down the weapons. This takes out the negative’s impacts.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: Round D
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
Good question about international property rights (as opposed to just US property rights). I would have followed up with some complication of the practicality of this international regime (like, US companies make lots of land claims on the moon right after the plan… what do international companies who want a share do?). Also, good effort to set up the ‘while to get to the moon’ / ‘peak oil coming soon’ double bind. I also liked the line of questioning about fusion energy’s inability to replace liquid fuels. Topicality was pretty good – I especially liked the examples of bad cases they allow and topical versions of their aff at the bottom. You could have definitely eliminated a bunch of redundancy in the speech, though. You repeated the argument about the requirement for economic activity a few times, and gave the list of bad cases at the top and bottom of the flow. Also, give some examples of topical cases they could run and ground that comes from a more active federal mechanism. On the case, it’d be better to go for more of the impact defense arguments against warming. I think that’s what you’re most ahead on after the 1NC, and it’s dangerous to engage their solvency mechanism – which they probably have pretty good evidence about. It’s dangerous to make ‘CP popular’ arguments – they can argue that the permutation solves the politics link, in that case. Given this politics link tension, it seems perhaps foolish to rely on the CP so heavily – allocating a few CP solvency cards to the case would have been better, I think. In CX, I’m not sure it’s best to give tax incentives as an example of contracting; those seem to be very similar to the plan (creating a framework to encourage development).

A pretty good 2NR decision – I think DA / case would have been alright too. Big picture, you should anticipate that this debate will come down to the impact to under-limiting versus the impact to linguistic precision. This puts you in a decent position impact-wise (since grammatical precision isn’t impact that much in the 1AR), but in a shaky position link-wise (since they are winning that their interpretation is not that much more underlimiting). You did a good job on the link in this speech, but didn’t capitalize on your impact lead as much as you could have. What is the impact to the topical versions of their aff? Maybe a ground argument on T would be about the international spillover effect of creating a legal framework – how the neg can’t answer that. Also, a lot of your arguments about core topic education and squirrelly affs beg the question of what the core of the topic actually is; you need to win that your interpretation is best before asserting that the cases it allows are core whereas theirs aren’t. For example, the bidirectionality argument presumes that space weapons cases are topical.


Date of debate: 8-9

Debating on: rd 4
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Warming –
Risk of warming. The neg has some defense, but I do not believe that the privates don’t have the capabilities. I do believe that perhaps the aff can’t solve all of the warming – too much co2 and perhaps some of the data is off, but there is undoubtedly a risk of this advantage.

Space MIl
The Garretson card about going through the UN – this card is not very good that it is required, but does seem to say it is a strong possibility
The NSSO card about the beam being over many cities is mediocre at best. This doesn’t subsum the neg link argument that the beam could be placed eradicately.
I think the perception link – despite the ability to check it out via the UN – means that some countries will backlash and retaliate. The aff does not provide a good explanation as to why checking out the equipment would alleviate their concerns that it could be used as a weapon or could provide military power that would threaten them. Impact here is another nuke war.

CP
I think the CP solves a large part of the heg advantage.
Although there seems to be a potential solvency deficit because the military needs to hire US citizens, I’m not sure what the impact to that is vis-à-vis the heg advantage. The neg has pretty good evidence that foreign workers can prove the necessary innovation and military strength in order to provide hard power srength.

I do think that SPS is key for forward deployment advancements, but I’m not sure how much of the impact is related to this. I wish the 2ar had described fwd deployment specific scenarios in order to give me a tangible impact to associate with this.

The negative wins a significant risk of the econ da. Increased spending will cause a future downgrade. The aff cards on the political battles being a part of this are true, but do not subsume the neg cards that talk about moody’s decision calculus.

Even if I give the aff that econ collapse doesn’t’ cause war, it doesn’t’ answer a variety of other turn the case args that are relevant such as
Econ collapse causes isolationism preventing them from getting their forward deployment impact
Econ collapse destroys our ability to invest in renewables and innovation, preventing their ability to solve warming


Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn
Comments:
1AR – Generally good coverage. You needed a more clear solvency deficit on the CP. Although you spent a lot of time on the counterplan solvency, I don’t really know why it doesn’t solve. Good job covering the case efficiently and comprehensively.
RFD: There’s really no net benefit in this debate. The aff wins that space militarization is inevitable so debris is inevitable. Also, industry will inevitably destroy the ozone and the perm/EDDE in the status quo solve space debris. Although the neg claimed Russia was a net benefit, there was no explanation of why a laser would be any different than NMD.
There’s not really a coherent solvency deficit until the 2AR, but I’m somewhat persuaded by the clouds argument. Also, if neither system is perfect, the perm seems best.


Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: tournament debate number 6
Instructor/commentator: zack elias
Comments:
I vote neg.

Aff doesn’t extend an impact to cap beyond “otherization” – which is just their aff in the first place.
Aff is in trouble when they fail to deal with two arguments:
1. “topical” version of the aff – while the 2NR didn’t do a very good job of phrasing this correctly, the aff doesn’t have a very good answer to it to begin with. The neg does an okay job explaining why the aff could still advocate a METAPHOR in the form of the federal government taking action – as long as said metaphor includes federal action so there’s a baseline for topic research on both sides. The neg should make the actual T version of the aff clearer – say that it’s that the federal government should embrace the alien or something – you want to make it as close to the aff advocacy text as possible. The aff could better deal with this by making more args about how shitty the state is – arguments about how it’s the wrong vehicle for change, etc. and that you should not be forced to depend it in any capacity.
2. limits/debatability discussion. The negative sort of skirts the issue here too by throwing out buzzwords like “they make debate impossible, we just make it hard” and “we need to test their truth claims,” but the argument is definitely there that education is net worse for everyone when you can’t really research an aff in advance because you aren’t informed on the topic of discussion. The neg doesn’t do a great job of explaining this, but it’s there. The neg should also be going farther in saying that the aff’s interpretation is MORE exclusionary because it shuts down the capacity for political dialogue over their aff. Impact this in terms of their “otherization” advantage – they are a more subversive form of otherization because they cloak themselves in their 1AC discourses while shutting down the capacity for political dialogue.
The aff can deal with this by either arguing why your interpretation’s limits aren’t terrible for debate (an argument that you should definitely spend some time on in the 2AR), or spending some time impacting the indeterminacy d/a to the neg’s interpretation vs. the limits stuff specifically.


Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

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!