Lab: KM
Email address: BRKSBENJAMIN <at> YAHOO <dot> COM

Date of debate: 7/19

Debating on: SPS 1AC
Instructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
Great job using a pen to not lose track of where you are. Remember to stand up straight so you don't cut off your airflow.

Date of debate: 7/20

Debating on: Helium-3 2NC
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn
Comments:
Great job explaining warrants. Your argument could be more efficient in some places, especially when you're referencing the other team's argument. You should practice being able to do that in 3-5 words. Great job specifically clashing with the 2AC arguments, especially on the number 1. Use "even if" arguments. For instance, even if China got to the moon, the US would still be the hegemon because we got there fifty years ago.

Date of debate: 7/22

Debating on: T Clash Drills
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Good use of embedded clash
Don't include as many even if statements. Don't say "even if they win competing interps, we'll still win on the line by line". The 2ar can explain those.
I liked your arg that contextual use by an expert demonstrates this is how the term is used.
Say that if the topic becomes overly narrow the debate is stale.
It's always good to say that you don't overlimit the topic.
You need a defensive arg that you don't overlimit the topic. Say that you don't explode limits because their generic space mil answers will answer all the space mil affs.

Date of debate: 7/26

Debating on: Elections Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
-- You did a good job signposting except for the first arg.
-- I thought you were right pointing out there's no impx to the second arg
-- I like your explanation of the link -- not focusing on the economy is good.
-- I liked the idea of reading another impx, but you need a terminal impx to Russian relations.
-- Read more cards on uniquenesss.
-- I think you were right to say that spending a ton of money on sps.
-- You should say they can't take out their own advantage if they read a warming impx.
--

Date of debate: 8/1

Debating on: Case Clash Drills
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Good job making brief extensions of the arguments. Very concise. Maybe a little bit more.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: neg vsasteroid detection
Instructor/commentator: Ken Strange
Comments: technical skills are very good except for being kind of inefficient in 2NR. You spend too much time assessing overall risks and, as a result, too little time on the line by line. Some argument suggestions 1. Go for the CP as solving the case. You do a good job on why the perm still gets the China DA. Ifthe CP solves the case, any risk of the DA will outweigh. Your evidence is specific on Chinese detections; their evidence is about the Chinese space program in general. 2. Your China prestige DA and their Chinese nationalism DA can both be true; onedoes not anwser the other. You need to specifically address their DA 3. Your over claiming the spending evidence. Your evidence just says there isn't room in the current budget, not that the budget could not be increased. It probably would have been better to spend the time you devoted to spending on China.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: rd 2
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: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament R2
Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
I voted negative because I thought that there was a strong competitiveness link that the permutation couldn’t resolve and that nationalism is a root cause of WMD conflict. I thought that the Russian aerospace DA on the case also tended negative though the Aff did manage to mitigate it’s risk some by pure spin on the U debate.


Date of debate: 8/10

Debating on: rd 6
Instructor/commentator: Campbell
Comments:
Solid debate, but poor block organization caused the neg to drop condo and then the 2nr failed to adequately recover. Good job aff to take advantage of this dropped argument; you actually extended theory well in each speech. Voted aff on condo.


Date of debate: 8/11

Debating on:Round 7
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:
I vote neg. Great debate. I was impressed with the good attitude everyone had in this debate and the strategic choices that both teams decided to make (especially the gutsy all-in on conditionality bad). I think that the negative wins the substance of the kritik. The 2AR is pretty light on the alternative, and I think that the negative’s “screaming out” against capitalism is an effective movement against the state and the way it uses capitalism. The neg also wins a few turns case claims that the exploitation caused by capitalism makes resource wars inevitable, and makes pragmatic policies unlikely to happen because the state is always engaged in trying to accumulate more capital. I think these arguments are sufficient to turn the case, and combined with the neg’s arguments about capitalism being the root cause of conflict, it’s a “try-or-die” scenario for the negative.
Conditionality debate: I think the negative wins that multiple worlds and the negative flexibility that branch from that are more important than the skewed fairness created from 2AC strategy skew from conditionality. A few reasons – first I don’t think the aff has a very good answer to the time skew/strat skew inevitable argument from the negative – that even with unconditional advocacies, the neative could read a bunch of off-case arguments. The aff’s only answer to this argument is that it doesn’t make it OK, but I think that this argument severely mitigates your impact. Second I think that the negative’s multiple worlds argument is pretty well articulated, as to why we need to have more initial arguments in the 1NC – and collapse down later (1 world in the 2NR), and how that solves education. The negative impacts their multiple worlds argument well with an internal link to education, while I think the aff’s 2AC skew argument is not particularly well impacted in the context of education. The fairness claims the aff makes are subsumed by the 2NR’s impact calculus that education outweighs fairness because that’s ultimately what we get from debate, while the aff doesn’t make a claim for why fairness is a more important internal link to education than simply the importace of conditionality for having discussions in the first place. While I buy the aff’s claim that the neg’s kicking of the counterplan may have skewed the 2AC in this specific debate, I don’t think that there is enough impact calculus done to justify deciding that conditionality is always bad for that reason, and deciding that that is worse than the education that would be lost if teams just read an unconditional advocacy instead.






EXAMPLE

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