Phan,+Ann

Good speed in the 1NC- focus on enunciation for speed drills The subsidies cross ex answers were a little confusing; maybe explain more of how they help companies and less about the process of obtaining them? Biggest thing is just speak with more confidence. I know you know what you are talking about.
 * Practice round #1 6/23/14- Ruby**

Round 4: Aff (1A) v. Izzie
 * Start more slowly in 1AC/constructive--work up to your top speed, will help your clarity ||
 * Forceful answers to Qs--good ||
 * Good CX questions ||
 * I would make your poverty impact about more than a utilitarian body count--puts pressure on the neg even if 2AR does not go for this ||
 * if you are going to extend an adv (manuf), you should extend the impact and compare it to the DAs ||
 * you need more readily flowed labels for your arguments--see Turbine DA ||
 * If you are going to indict evidence, identify which card is bad ||

7-2:

Ann—be sure to specifically extend case offense. On the counter advocacy, you should really be attacking the link—generally, you should think about making more debate-y type arguments on the counter advocacy. How do you represent traditional debate?

Sam and Ann—you should ask what the bright line is on speaking for others.

Generally everyone needs to work on clash—the debate feels like it’s all about how neither side does anything for the other side, so it comes down to this “me first” framework without warrants for why I should vote for Ann the yellow pirate or Aasim and Nisarg the terrorists first. If Ann doesn’t think we need to blow up debate, how does the counteradvocacy make space for her to be a pirate? And if Aasim and Nisarg think that we definitely do need to blow it up, how does making Ann a pirate move them out of the state of exception?

Tournament rd. 1 - Judge Thorn

1NC - This is an amazing 1NC. Nice specific link analysis and explanation of positionality. Don't frame link analysis solely as links of omission ("they don't talk about X") but link it to the discourse of 1AC. Insert linking quotes from 1AC and C/X - "look from the perspective" and such. Emphasize difference between your alt and their AFF, how they are mutually exclusive.

2AC - Argument about "putting ourselves in an analagous position in State of Exception" is pretty good - frame this as an answer to the kritik. Spend more time on the K in general. Perm the K (e.g. what you said in CX, "invite Ann to become pirate..."). The impact card extensions you read at the bottom are not very useful, as they seem also subsumed by K alt. You need to generate offense on the K.

 .

2NC - Good job with the link quotes from AFF c/x and 1AC. Impact them further, e.g. Captain Phillips tries to bandage one of the somali pirates when his foot bleeds. How do we separate the AFF from Phillips' humanitarianism?

1NR - I like how you perform the alt - a praxis of how to be in solidarity, e.g. this is "there is a non-linking version of the AFF."

1AR/2AR - There is a performative of solidarity happening here too, standing aside, quitting, deferring. Very ethical - but there is also a way of generating offense against the K, see below. The question is how is it possible to be an ally under the NEG's link claim. Draw offense against the K off the "we place ourselves in SoE"

**Positioning (**General note): identifying, locating, GPS perhaps the very opposite of being pirate, who is imperceptible, fluid, floating. Specify how position functions here. Neg says AFF doesn't position themselves, but position the pirates - it would seem that one point of clash here is whether POSITIONALITY is inevitable here. Neg links try to pin the aff down "they are stuck to their 1AC as rhetorical artifact," "they have no positionality"

Generally, neg is very well envisioned performatively, it does an AMAZING job at presencing Ann in Sam's speeches, of speaking not for others but letting presences function.

RFD - Neg, the specific links to the K are dropped. Neg frames the debate as best embodied education - their method solves better for the aff.