Lab: CO
Email address: bbernerslee <at> gmail <dot> com

Date of debate: 7/19

Debating on: SSP Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator: Crowe
Comments:
Start off just a touch slower to allow the judge to get used to your speaking style, then build up speed.
Instead of saying "I know I don't have the Bostrum card, but..." just make the analytic argument. Not having your usual evidence to make an impact argument is a good excuse to work on impact calculus instead of referencing a card you can't read!
You are sometimes significantly quieter while you read the text of evidence. I'd like to see all of your speech be at roughly the same volume (with pauses and inflection changes for transitions, obviously).
Good time allocation, but remember as the 2N on the case, you don't HAVE to go for every argument, just enough to take out the advantage.
You say "she concedes" a lot. Sometimes, it's true, but sometimes you're misconstruing "conceding" with your own perception of what a "good" answer is. Just extend arguments that are conceded and call it a day.
Much of your 2NR overview could be left out. For example: "Joyce can't win if she concedes four inroads to her argument and has no inroads into mine." I agree, but, that's not an argument. That's just a description of how IF those conditions were true, you would win, but you need to MAKE those conditions true and eliminate that language entirely.
Very good first go at this stuff!

Date of debate: 7/27

Debating on: Case Clash Drill
Instructor/commentator: Miranda Ehrlich
Comments:
2NC
You should be exploiting this “their authors are hacks” claim even more—if they truly dropped it in the 2AC, it devastates them on multiple flows, even if it’s a dumb argument. Explain your warrants a bit more here—instead of just listing them, describe them in a bit more detail, because I don’t know what “spirituality” means in the context of author bias on SPS. Don’t use the tag “here’s another card” – if it’s the same as an old piece of evidence, you shouldn’t be reading it anyway. Be careful about reading offense in the block—the 1AR could potential impact turn space militarization. In terms of organization, you should reference the 1NC order more and make fewer subpoints. Often, there was no “b” subpoint.

2NR
Make sure you go to all of the flows in the 2NR. She may not have covered the economy flow very well, but you need to go there and extend the defense she dropped. Otherwise, it gives the 2AR free license to go all out on that advantage. You should clarify scientific questions more instead of just throwing around numbers – while statistics are persuasive; when they compete with each other without any context it is difficult to resolve the debate.
Date of debate: 7/29
Debating on: SPS aff
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:

1AC
- Try to stand up straight. You’re plenty fast and pretty clear, but it doesn’t get projected out very well when you’re leaning over. Obviously, talking off a chair is less than ideal but you should really make an effort to construct a podium tall enough to let you talk off it.
- There are a couple places where your volume really drops off. I think maybe because you’re getting slightly out of breath?

1AR
- Efficiency! 1) You use a lot of unnecessary filler words (excite the word ‘indicates’ from your 1AR vocabulary for instance). 2) You repeat things a lot. For instance, you did the 10% stuff on warming for some reason and then did it all over again on the solvency flow. Just do it once where it needs to go. 3) You do way too much description of the negative arguments. For example: “They say other countries can do the plan, but there's a few reasons why the US must be first.” Work on doing more embedded clash, particularly on the case.
- These things mean that you were REALLY top heavy. 90 seconds to get through warming advantage and 3 minutes total on the case.
- You don’t need a TON more time on the off case positions, given some concessions from the block. But you should anticipate getting there with a limited amount of time and make sure you can prioritize what to emphasize.
- On the launches DA, your biggest answer is that the DA is inevitable because of Russia and China, but that suggests that warming is inevitable, which takes out one of your advantages.


Date of debate: 7/29

Debating on: Space Militarization Aff
Instructor/commentator: Miranda
Comments:
I really enjoyed the block strategy. Be careful about reading econ impacts in the block – the 1AR could have made the entire debate about dedev vary easily. You should do more spin on the uniqueness/inevitability debate more – make sure you’re always comparing warrants instead of just extending your own. You need to tone it down a bit in cross-x – sometimes aggression can be good, but when you do it too much, especially when cross-x-ing someone as calm as Baasil, it doesn’t come off well. Pursue one line of questioning, and realize when you have lost a point and move on. Look at me during cross-x, not your opponent. 2NR was pretty good, but you need to do more internal link work and comparisons. Impact calc, especially comparing timeframes, would help sort out the impact turns from the impacts. Save more time for the counterplan.

Date of debate: 8/3

Debating on: practice debate A
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2NC – Great speech overall. I think you could use a little more interaction with/discussion of the specific aff scenarios.
I’m not sure what all the time talking about “the K is not a CP” really gets you.
Block strategy – a little confusing to me… are you going to use case defense in the 2NR? If not, it seems like a waste of the 1NR. Also, making Joyce read several cards is problematic and hurts her ability to cover the case well.
2NR – Start with a brief impact assessment about why the K outweighs and turns the case. Reasons their threats are constructed can be separate/on the line by line.
Make sure to answer the ozone argument. Generally the 2NR is very good. I wish that you had some more permutation answers and more explanation of why the permutation fails.

Date of debate: 8/9

Debating on: Tournament debate 1 - aff vs. Caplan and Galerstein
Instructor/commentator: Eli
Comments:
This was a really good debate. I voted neg for Robert and Will on the spending turn to the economy advantage. I thought they won that argument and were winning uniqueness against the hegemony advantage and slowness of solvency + unlikelihood that warming would be that bad on warming. The debate was very competitive and would have been a toss-up if not for this sequence of 3 crucial points: the 1ar decision not to kick the economy advantage / general under-coverage of case, the 2nr decision to go for the case, and the 2ar decision not to kick an advantage / under-coverage of the economy turn.

Nice job reading new evidence in the 1ar. A little more explanation / defense of authors and scenarios would have been useful on the K. And you really under-covered the case. I’d probably kick the economy advantage (which they’re winning offense on), shadow extend the hegemony advantage, and really thoroughly extend the warming scenario. Don’t lose sight of your 1ac impacts! Set up 2ar comparisons in the 1ar.


Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:

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!