Mt.+de+Sales+OM+v.+Westminster-Augusta+MR+-+Stratford+Round+4

1AC – I would recommend standing up while reading, I think that you will be more clear as well as speed up. I think that you should show the other team evidence after you’ve read it. I think this is the most fair standard for debate because it increases both teams education by offering a check to infinite prep as well as checking research skills. Also, you should not have an attitude while reading. The tone of your voice is rude to the other team and it sounds as if you don’t want to be here. I would be careful about that – some judges really may care and may dock speaker points for that.

1NC – I have questions about the strategy. I think that it’s not strategic to define social services two different ways – I think it’s best if you just choose one for your debate. I think you need some practice doing speed drills. This also may be because you’re sitting down but I think that you could be faster if you just keep practicing and possible change the inflection on your voice. You’re very monotone and I think that if you vary it up you can speed up. The second contention on your CP flow is a little old-school, I think you’d be fine if you took that out in front of most judges. I think cross-x can check the competition of the counterplan.

1AC CX – Your attitude is uncalled for in the cross-x. Debate is not about intimidating your opponent but rather making better arguments. You can make better arguments while NOT belittling your opponent. I also don’t understand why you bring your partners religion into the round. It really has nothing to do with the round, also if you plan on making an argument based on religion, to make it at least subjective as possible you should talk about the general population of that certain religion rather than a specific person. I’m sorry to break it to you, but your partner DOES NOT represent all of the Islam population.

2AC – A tip in giving road maps – you don’t need to say “I’m going to address the importance of…” You can just say the title of the flows – Solvency, Education, Underview, etc… Additionally I don’t think you should ever begin a case debate in the 2AC by just reading cards. You should probably always put some type of analysis on the top. Additionally you want to make sure that you’re only reading cards that have a purpose in the round. For instance, the first three minutes of the 2AC you spent reading cards that probably just linked yourself further into the criticism. Your partner should probably be flowing your speech rather than just sitting on a desk barefoot in front of you. The private market cards you’re reading are applicable to the private markets CP – this is when you should be going to the CP flow. Additionally, most of the poverty impact cards you’re reading are pretty warrantless and have no real purpose in the round. If the negative concedes the impact from the 1AC, you do not need to read 2-3 of the same impacts. You should also not say to the other team, “sit down please,” it’s actually quite rude. This goes back to what I wrote about your partner – sharing evidence during the round only increases education. What is even worse about this situation is that your partner just laughs – this tells me as the judge that you are not doing this because you think its right __but rather__ because it’s funny and rude. Your 2AC is mostly non responsive – you concede three topicality shells (although 2 probably could be argued to contradict each other). You cannot concede topicality and expect to win affirmative rounds. Additionally, you should not concede that nuclear war is worse than poverty. Your impacts are basically all poverty based in the 2AC. You conceded the impact framework for the negative that nuclear wars are worse.

1NC CX – You probably need to ask some questions here rather than just let your partner ask questions.

2NC – You don’t need to go to any other flow than T. They concede it and seriously a 2 minute analysis as to why they are not topical and why that’s bad for the community is enough for me to sign my ballot in the 2NC. Rather you go to the Kritik – which is the only thing they answer. One problem I have with the 2NC is the “speed.” You have good speed but you want to make sure you open your mouth more wide when you talk, because what is happening is your mouth is closing off the sound and you’re sounding muddled. The kritik overview should go at the top of the speech, you can add this Rand card at the bottom of the overview as to why the impacts outweigh / turn the case. You have decent analysis as to how it turns the case – however you have a weakness exposed here – you’re only “fast” if you’re reading… I think its more strategic to be fast in all aspects of debate, rather than just reading. One way you increase your speed while actually debating is doing rebuttal redo’s and practicing every rebuttal when you get back to school. You can also probably go through all of your 1AC and explain every affirmative card in less than 15 seconds without reading the actual card. This will help you learn your aff as well as try to spread during talking. “They’ve dropped T” is not enough explanation for judges – you need to in depth about what topicality violation they have dropped and what that means for the debate.

Aff – You should never outright laugh at the other team, especially for spreading. Spreading is not funny and it’s immature that you would laugh at the other team. Just think about every time you laugh, he’s probably making another argument that you will concede.

1NR – Your T analysis is not good but I think that’s it’s enough probably for this debate. You’re doing a decent job I think that you just need to limit yourself to maybe one topicality and really think about it. You do have over 11 minutes to prepare for this speech so it should be the arguably the best speech in the round. ALSO, Don’t pace around during everyone’s speech.

1AR – You should not begin a road map by saying, “I’m going to try and go to…” You want your road map to sound confident—you know that thing yo have too much of in cross-x? Okay, I really don’t understand the purpose of reading States CP answers in the 1AR – they never read a states CP. The 1AR tries to articulate that these arguments answer the coercion K – but they really don’t. You should not be this scattered after you spend almost 3 minutes of prep. The purpose of pre time is to actually create I think it’s kind of funny that when you’re making fun of the other team with one of the cards you’re reading especially when it says, “the renters are free to make a choice…. OF WHAT THE GOVT DECIDES MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.” This is the link to the criticism. I think that before you try and call out the other team, you probably want to make sure the argument you’re using actually gets you somewhere.

2NR – I really don’t know why you are not going for the Topicality. I think the 2NR could probably go for anything and still get the ballot – the affirmative is pretty non responsive.

2AR – Again, road map needs work. Most of the 2AR arguments are new – some are okay, most though still just feed into the criticism. You don’t read new cards in the 2AR.

RFD – I vote negative – I think that the conceded Biz Con DA is too much of an impact for the aff to overcome. Additionally, even if I think that the 2NR doesn’t give enough analysis I think that the free market probably solves the affirmative better than the aff does.