Bullard,+Sam

__**Round 3:**__ **Blaize DePass:** Otto/Sam vs Dwight/Kevis

EVERYBODY: CX is something that should be worked on. Some good questions are being asked, but I think it’s important to be asking questions to garner offense and links to your positions. I also think that some of this round is a little more heated and tense than it needs to be. Some sensitive stuff is being brought up but I think that if everyone shows everyone some respect this will go a lot more smoothly. I like that even though this was a tense round, that people are still having a fun time with it. Everybody did a good job and sounds good and made good arguments. Just keep practicing and I’m excited to see where everyone can go with their skill sets!

Sam (2AC)—This is a good speech. I’m glad that you have clarity while also having speed. Your analysis is good and you are answering and extending args which is good. I think that time allocation is really good until you decide to go to the nuke da with 3:15 left. You should spend a lot of time on cap especially given that crossex that preceded the 2ac. You should make sure that you are taking the most offensive position and attacking it as much as possible. I still think answers were good, but you could’ve done a lot more work on cap since that likely what they seem to be wanting to go for. I think you should be careful with the words you use in order to make sure you don’t come across the wrong way. This speech was good! Keep it up!

Sam (2AR)—These questions at the top of the performativity flow are questions that should’ve been asked earlier in the round. These questions could be damning if presented earlier in the debate in a more compelling manner. Your time efficiency is on point and you are making good arguments. I think this is a good speech, especially since there was obvious communication between you and your partner. I think you should probably do a lot more impact comparison, but besides that this was a good speech!

__**Practice Round 5, 6/27: **__

1AC: Good clarity on your tags, I would suggest doing breathing drills to try and work on going longer without breathing but that's about all you can focus on, particularly in tags, card text is fast and clear. Nice job.

1AR: Do more explanation on what your counterinterperation is, even if they drop it. Give warrant why potential abuse is a voter without a story of in round abuse. Overall good work on T. Be careful on the econ impact, cap turns this. Make the argument that energy prices are the critical starting point to solving poverty. Try to answer why capitalism would influence things like solvency even if this isn't a developed neg arg. Good work on the capitalism flow overall, you could do more with your no link analysis. Good perm analysis.

7-2: Sam—1ac: more clearly indicate when you’re moving on to a tag. I think you need a clearer articulation of your method in analyzing your position in whiteness.

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__** - 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.