Charlyn+vs.+Satay+-+BigBen+Goodman

1AC cx –
 * Don’t let her get out more warrants/explanation. You’re giving her speech time, you need to get links and be more offensive about your questioning.
 * Good job taking the open questions and running with them, 1AC. You appeared to be knowledgeable about your case.

1NC (arg choice, etc.) –
 * You don’t need to specify the off case before the speech just tell me 2 off and give a case order.
 * Good offensive strategy, but you kind of limit your strategic option.

1NC cx by 1AC –
 * You’re letting her get away with a lot… be slightly more aggressive in cx (without being mean of course)
 * Your questioning is aggressive which is good but in a case where it’s pretty clear you’re dominating cx you might want to tone it down

2AC –
 * You dropped their card on solvency, which is not entirely damning but you should be careful about that. When a judge asks for an order a second time you should second guess yourself about the order and re-check to make sure there’s not something you’re missing. At least put something there or extend something because makes things look messy. If you did put something there directly or meant to, I didn’t catch it because it wasn’t in your roadmap and I flowed it somewhere else.
 * A bit better organization on your 2AC blocks would be appreciated, though not 100% necessary. Do the work for the judge, we are often lazy creatures who do not want to do work at the end of a debate (and besides, you have a ton of prep time outside of rounds here with a finite packet – use this to your advantage and make some solid blocks with good organization).

Didn’t flow cx after this, srry :<

2NC –
 * When you’re speaking try to focus on fluidity more than anything else.
 * Computer problems suck but you shouldn’t stop in your tracks – just start making analytics or something

1NR –
 * Be more responsive to their arguments. You’re reading cards but you’re not saying anything, at least not directly, to refute their issues with your position.

1AR –
 * Pretty good speech. Maybe less on case, because their cards are mostly defensive (if not entirely), and more on politix. I thought politix was still at least a little bit viable for a 2NR, albeit it would’ve had to have been an amazing speech.
 * I like that you got the impact comparison out in the 1AR, you had the time to certainly, and it gives a more coherent/strong story to the aff and what I would vote on if I chose to do so.

2NR –
 * The organization seemed good but you really just need to fill in the blanks. There are a lot of dropped defensive cards (almost terminally defensive because of how dropped they are) and ultimately not only are you not doing impact comparison/calculus, you’re not giving me a reason the status quo is a lot better than the scary world of the plan (i.e. you’re not getting to the impacts at all)
 * The disarray in this speech is probably largely due to lack of prep time, and I think something that makes this debate a lot more winnable for you is managing your prep better. Try to cut down on 2NC prep.

2AR –
 * Again, pretty solid speech. The majority of time spent on case was the right decision. Honestly I might’ve even been as bold as to just throw the disads on top, extend like 3 key pieces of defense (i.e. nonux, zerosum, whatever) and/or the turn and spend the rest on case after that.
 * Pick one or two advantages and blow them up, maybe. Maybe not, idk, seemed like you had plenty of time to go for them all.