Irsfeld,+Christopher

Practice Round 6/23

2NC: Overall really great speaking style. You can definitely go faster if that is something you want to work on. You are making good smart arguments where you need to. Good line-by-line style on your flow, you can develop this more over camp. Sometimes you are a little wordy and you can work on efficiency here.

2NR: Nice overview, I think you can get even more persuasive if you start with an overview of impacts and do the calculous there. You should make a timeframe perm argument, that's why their perm shouldn't solve. The 1AR dropped your DA I think you should have focused more on the DA in the 2NR.

CX: Stick to your guns in cross-ex, you are doing well just keep at it with your answers. You should

1AC
 * 6/24**

Good pace and flow of your speaking

1AR

Be more efficient in the 1AR “their first argument here is that” is too many words to say. In the 1AR, you should be more focused on getting your arguments out there, the judge will be more forgiving organizationally in the 1AR than other speeches Your arguments are quite good, just focus on efficiency “Extend across our x card that says that wind energy could create millions of jobs” should be “wind energy creates millions of jobs – that’s x – warrant” Rhetorical questions are more useful as a 2AR ethos moment than in the 1AR – you just don’t have the time to do so You should try and make sure your arguments have flowable tags

Try to answer the arguments that the 2AC makes in what is called "line by line". Start with an overview, and then say, "they say" but "___."
 * 6/25**

In the 2NR, go for T for 5 minutes or not at all. Try to develop your arguments a bit deeper! Put the DA on first if you are going for the DA and case.

 2ac  Solve  Pov  2NC  1AR  2NR  Nuke  CP
 * Ozzy**
 * Neg needed to kick something in the block
 * Kick T and CP
 * Answered that we didn’t prove abuse
 * Go for t or not at all
 * Not direct enough
 * 2AC pretty good
 * Climate change dropped in 1NC make debate revolve around it
 * Warming debate should be on warming flow
 * More bridge
 * Say decker solves warming
 * 1AR did good saying wind will solve
 * Consider reading nuke bad for environment, doesn’t solve
 * 2AC do better clashing
 * Read right cards, just be more specific
 * Directly respond
 * Don’t read same evidence
 * You dropped turns
 * Neg good on turn, but you should blow it up, best offense
 * 1AR makes mistake of pumping up impact, even though partner conceded turn
 * 2NR, be more explicit about ethical issue, debate over cause case turn
 * Disads
 * Try better line by line
 * Good job on mining sucks
 * Make it a domino effect, one species leads to another
 * If you think good answers are analytics, but them in 2AC frontline
 * Extend evidence with warrant
 * Be more exact
 * Split up by authors
 * If you think your winning poison in Chi, then borrow Giligan structural violence
 * Back and forth good overall on nuke
 * Apply biased lobbyist argument to specific arguments
 * Aff good job extending nukes shutting down now
 * Red tape kills nuke
 * Neg, talk more about it
 * 1NR pretty good
 * You should say “Net benefit outweighs solvency”
 * You should say “If we win better solve then we win”
 * Wish there was a perception argument to Aff
 * You should ask status of CP
 * Neg, concede and kick more things
 * “wind energy might have less CO2, but the total process is worse”
 * Stronger if you point out warming 1AC species claim is linked to extinction


 * Round 7: Blaize DePass:** Andrew/Clara vs Tanner/CJ

CJ (2NC)--This was a good speech and you sound good but you gotta go a bit further with the arguments. You gotta answer all their arguments on the flows you are going on. I think you want to isolate those things and answer them so that the judge knows you are answering the arguments they bring up. Working on speed could also help you get more out in the 2NC.

CJ (2NR)--I think you went for too much in this speech. You bog yourself down by trying to go for every flow. You do not need to go for every flow. You can pick a few arguments you like and think are winning and go for those as opposed to everything that was talked about. I think that is why this speech was messy, because you tried to go for everything. Also, I like your enthusiasm, but I feel as if you might be straining yourself because of your volume. If so, you don't have to be loud to make your point. Instead you can rely on sounding confident which you are good at.

7/1: Chris—1ar: you don’t need to spend so much time on the cap k—they didn’t address it in the block, so you shouldn’t spend 50 seconds of your 1ar on it. You do a good job of answering their line-by-line--be sure that you’re also extending your offense.