Charlyn+vs.+Blaizin+-+Mike+Baxter-Kauf

Make sure you are speaking in tags in the 1ar—use the phrase “extend the 2AC BLANK” and avoid the word gonna (you’re gonna, we’re gonna, etc)—get to cap way earlier, its about 2:30, and this is the only way you could lose the debate—explain this analogy with occupy a bit further—good job setting up ur impact comparisons, but try to be specific to your own impact args—
 * Kathryn**

2ac—don’t slow down between args on the case—transitions between arguments (different flows) are also disorienting—explain the China argument specifically, what is the turn, why does it matter, why does it outweigh etc—when you explain the leadership impact you need to put it in relationship with cap—2 minutes is too much before you get to cap—why should we prefer the argument about lifting the embargo etc.—your warming argument needs to be put into the context of the cap debate, you are just sort of ignoring this part of the k that has been pretty well developed—why does a structural impact matter more than theirs? Why is theirs not structural?—what are the other instances?
 * Charlie**

1NR—your condo responses at first did not make sense, until 40 seconds into the speech I don’t think u had really made an argument—need to refer to your evidence more specifically, you are doing a good job with their stuff—kinda janky isn’t an argument, you need to be clear in your impact arguments—how could this be a viable 2nr strategy, make sure the 1nr is about setting that up—
 * Yassin**

2nc—you don’t have any flair when u start the 2nc, don’t lose the shit you do well in “performance debate” because you are doing “policy debate”—every time u use the word “to” you pause substantially—you start to sound bored by the time you get to the line by line—don’t start out with micro debate, the overview needs to be macro questions—their impact arguments are not really about caring about the people involved, you need to be making comparisons to the impact arguments the 2AR is gonna be talking about—you need to be specific about the answers you are extending against the permutation—why is their argument about violence stupid? You hvaen’t given this argument enough credence—you need to be much more specific about why their impact arguments are lies
 * Blaize**