Matt+and+Tucker+vs.+Hayley+and+Jack+Judge+Turner

Eric:

-Change the structure of your pauses/rhythm of the 1AC. You’re currently taking a very long pause between cite and card but not pausing between the end of a card and a new tag. Split the one long pause into two slightly shorter pauses. -Cross-ex – I would stop referring the USFG as “we” – this makes it harder to clarify responses about gov’t involvement and private investors. Refer to these groups differently. -1AR – Scott’s lecture about 1AR coverage of DA impact calculus would’ve helped here. Esp. the use of advantage uniqueness against turns the case. -1AR clarity – you are stumbling over yourself and it’s difficult to follow. Try redoing this speech at a more moderate pace to develop rhythm/efficiency and then gradually build your rate.

Tucker: -You read many theoretical cards on the security K, but didn’t apply them to your leadership advantage or extend the leadership advantage. Both of these must be present to deploy the more abstract arguments more effectively. -Case coverage in the 2AC – there were some significant argument mismatches/misidentifications that hurt your use of 1AC evidence. For example, you responded to warming slow/adaptation solves with “SPS solves warming.” You have 1AC cards that respond to both of these arguments, they should be in efficient block form to make sure they get used. -Colonization is a dangerous add-on.

Hayley: -Read a couple of the 1NC K tags a bit slower and with a pause between the two arguments contained in them. Reading as one block of text is too hard to flow. -1NR, might want to go to the add-on first to prevent the coverage dilemma that occurred here. -Be sure to apply solvency take-outs to the add-on.

Jack: -Too may facets of impact calc. We’ve talked about choosing one/two instead of trying to win that an impact is superior in all ways. Think about comparing the importance of different dimensions (i.e. magnitude). -Prioritize conditionality arguments more in terms of quality. I.e. “is best for the aff” should not be in the middle. -Conditionality block efficiency– don’t need to say conditionality so many times in the internal structure/reference of this block. -2NR – stumbling over yourself in argument reference and construction. When redoing focus on efficiency rather than speed. -Need more impact comparison instead of description. I.e. instead of “Our presence in South Korea is important for leadership” “The credibility of our alliance commitments to South Korea is more important for US leadership than aerospace development because…” -Anticipate the likely affirmative impact framing (try or die climate) and explain impact in light of this. Probability of DA versus remaining solvency is a good place to start.