Jack+and+Andrew+A.+vs.+Harrison+and+Paul+Judge+Turner

Everyone - flowing. Don't flow off the viewing laptop. It means that you don't have succinct argument references and that you're not actually flowing. There may be important analytical arguments that you miss.

-Keeping track of offense. Both last rebuttals missed a turn on cooperation DA that could have been decisive. 1NR and 1AR, make sure you're following the debate/helping your partner manage so this type of thing doesn't get missed.

-Multipolarity vs. Unipolarity not the same as Unilateral vs. Multilateral. We talked over this after the debate, but you should be careful about the use of these terms given that the linkage between them is part of a the debate on the cooperation DA (is unilateral or multilateral action better for sustaining US unipolarity).

Jack: -Well done starting slower on the 1AC. -Breathing – stand up straight to breath through your diaphragm. -1AR – reference arguments before cties. Tougher to follow citational reference and decreases the variety of arguments (esp. if there are multiple arguments in a card). -Better answer to turns the case – relative importance of the case versus the DA for climate (they’ve concede the SPS can solve most fossil fuel use and their card is only about getting improved climate data). -More time on spending less time on warming -Spending impact argument/probability should be made differently. Maybe reference the structural and cyclical status of budget and spending problems as proof that they have lower impact and require long term solution (i.e. increased revenue and growth from SPS versus sustained costs of warming adaptation). -Don’t interfere with 2AC cross-ex except out of dire necessity.

Andrew A.: -Your overviews on the case contained too much description. You can stick with impact calculus instead of re-describing scenarios. -Answered unnecessary arguments on solvency – flow instead of looking at the viewing computer. -2AR: In building your order start thinking about the interaction between the pages and your likely way for winning the debate (climate versus spending). This type of thinking will also avoid labeling each argument on the spending DA as “another reason you won’t vote on their spending DA.”

Harrison: -Give argument titles in the 1NC -Argument not cite first for argument reference. -Good attempt at evidence comparison/reading un-underlined portions of aff cards. Here, I thought that your interpretation of their climate risk assessment card wasn’t accurate (it says even if there are economic costs to stopping climate change it’s important to act, doesn’t concede that solving climate change would entail huge costs). Probably should be reading/comparing solvency cards.

Paul: -Explain impact before comparing w/ warming -Probability odd choice versus warming -Include turns the case in your impact arguments. -Argument reference – You need to refer to arguments instead of transition by reading a new card about a different portion of the advantage. -Drop the phrase, “What this is saying,” you’re double-explaining evidenc.e -Too many references to “Stuff” instead of actual nouns. - MUST KICK DA – there was a turn. -Argument resolution in 2NR. Those times that you claimed they “don’t have anything here” start thinking about even if type statements that resolve arguments in your favor even though they have competing claims.