Huber,+Katherine

Practice Round 1 (L.Smith) --- Good clarity. You need to make sure to extend your evidence in response to an argument. Don't just start by extending your evidence all at the top, compare it to the other teams.

Practice Round 2 (A. Dahl) -- okay kate! this round kinda fell to pieces, but that's absolutely not your fault. i appreciate you taking it seriously.

regardless, as far as the 2AC goes- you did very well for your flows being messed up. the important thing was that you told me where you were going and made relevant arguments. i hope i get to judge you again in a more "real" debate so i can give you advice that is more oriented towards the strategic/specific argumentation decisions/etc.

the 2AR was very good. imho, all 2Rs should take a step back like that, which doesnt always happen. you were very careful to answer even their more throwaway arguments. all in all, strong debate!

Round 3- Affirmative .VS. Liam and Aaron
Judge: Ozzy

Neg was winning some arguments on poverty- the turn could have one. The Gilligan card could be a trap door for the aff.
==== The 1ar was pretty good and very technical- to assist time allocation is to apply the long-term short-term argument to specific thinks. Its smart to say it’s about status qou short term. If they say red tape say with long-term tax credit you only have to do the process every year- that’s shrunken. ====

On the disad you should make the disad even through they didn’t make it go away. Should have extended more args or you don’t say anything too.
==== 2NR did a good job but should explain what to do when the net benefit goes away. The solvency on the counterplan would work better if they had framed it for the judge. If the counterplan solves almost as good because the status qou could be good? If they turned the aff so much it would have overshadowed the solvency debate on the counterplan. Had no clear reason to prefer on the counterplan. Maybe innovation will solve poverty for ten years but if your talking about a problem that fucks people over for centuries it takes more. ==== ==== The aff should relate one of the aff impacts to one of the solvency deficit- the clearest is manufacturing. No mention of Middle East war in the 2ar. You aren’t winning the entire solvency deficit. Its ok if they solve most of it but make a bigger deal of manufacturing. If you think these are close you should vote aff because we give more details- but its not then go into details of manufacturing. ====

The tax credit could model to other countries- that would be a difference- that’s the best way to solve china. Read about failing free market in china. Blow up the difference in the end.
==== Talking about Gilligan was ok but you need to blow it up. Cutting off the plan cuts off the poor, and then the solvency deficit arguments blow up the impact. Connect it to the impact. Than Gilligan really sounds good. The reason why poverty happens is because of the free market. The counterplan just says believe in capitalism to solve poverty. ====

Are we still going to hope for those subsidies when shit hits the fan waiting might be too far gone to even solve. Sometimes timeframe with warming makes sense.
==== Wrapping up the story needs to revolve around an impact. Every 2ar you are revolving around an advantage/impact but your choosing something. If its going to be Gilligan talk about how its number one, it will help you guide your speech. ==== ==== Should start off on the CP having no net benefit- frame the debate around that. If you go into a debate with a clear impact in mind. Keep asking how that would threaten warming. Are they saying nuclear war causes warming? Think about innovation- go in with a plan then all arguments are given strategic meaning. The 2ar should happen pre round. Jack Rabbit should know you’d never go for a certain impact. ====

Aff spread a lot of answers around.
6-30:

Kate—Don’t ask what voting aff does—it’s a super open ended question that allows them to ramble on. Don’t ask them what their performance does—unless you’re trying to get a link, you should be controlling the interpretation. You have good ethos in cx. 2nc—work on going straight down the flow. Lean on the piracy links a lot more—hold them to the discourse of their 1ac cards. You should be doing framing in an overview at the top of the 2nc.

2nr—I think you should have gone for the gender k. I don’t know what the impact to appropriation is, and the link story doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

Kate and Jeremy—they read piracy cards for their aff, so you really need to hold them to the links on your arguments.