AFF: i liked: -the thesis -how she presented the case clearly and logically, and why things linked and were important -her quotes and which segments she read -the last preemptive argument about other ways to attract business
i didn't like: -the lack of contentions/subpoints. i know she said first, second, etc, but i think contentions make it easier to flow and keep organized
NEG: i liked: -the thesis -organization -her final statement that reiterated the thesis and solidified her stance
i didn't like: -the general presentation. i can't decide what it was. maybe it was just the style, but it kind of grated on me. -her last sentence of the first contention was a bit of an assumption, because she assumed that because chances of success were marginal, there would never be success -so was her second contention; because countries already had been discovered, it means they all would try to blackmail or torture to get more info? i know that debate will be opinionated, but i felt like the quotes she used to support her claims were too biased and assuming -i would have liked to see more hard fact, it's harder to attack than opinionated quotes
-The intro was really cool. I liked the story to illistrate the resolution. -the explanation of justice was cool -the value and vc explanations and link was very nice - I actually used some of the same arguments in my case lol _the end was a beautiful way of smuuing up the main meat and potatos of the case
;( do not like
-I personally don't like a lot of cards. i like toe ohio style slow debate with more anaylisis by the debator rather than lots of cards. -I like a more structured care where they say ci is... c2 is ...
NEG
;) do like -the quote is cool -the case is very organized and short sweet and to the point. this gives her more time for the attack of the 1AC. -she reconizes that rights are not absolute - wow beautiful.. she makes her claim, she warrents it then she sums it up wonderful - says that the intelligence gathering practices actually HERTS the war on terror wow!!! that s awesome
;( not like -More anaylisis would be good for the V and VC - though i liked the shortness, i mite like to see a little more anaylisis in some places, but very little. It was really good
Aff case Likes-the example of Mr. Archie in the intro -the links between contentions -how she uses real-world examples in her arguments -the wording of her connections between the VP and C
Dislikes-the definition for eminent domain. i think it was long and unclear -her use of assumptions in the arguments
Neg case Likes-how the contentions were summarized before they were read -the conclusion -the links between the VP and C
Dislikes-the quote in the intro. i had a hard time seeing how it was relevant to the resolution -the length of the contentions. i think some things could be taken out to save time.
~Aff~ Liked: *How she defined eminent domain to help prove her point. *That she stated the res clearly. *She linked everything together and was well organized.
Didn't like: *How she used the story in the intro. It was as if she was trying to sway the jugdes to her side emotionaly. *I think she could have analyzed more of her evidence instead of continuing to give more evidence.
~Neg~ Liked: *It was short yet able give evidence to clarify her side. *Well organized. *Last statement rounded up her whole arguement.
Didn't like: *Definetly could of explained more and used more evidnece. *The beginiing quote. Didn't see how it was relevent.
5 comments:
AFF:
i liked:
-the thesis
-how she presented the case clearly and logically, and why things linked and were important
-her quotes and which segments she read
-the last preemptive argument about other ways to attract business
i didn't like:
-the lack of contentions/subpoints. i know she said first, second, etc, but i think contentions make it easier to flow and keep organized
NEG:
i liked:
-the thesis
-organization
-her final statement that reiterated the thesis and solidified her stance
i didn't like:
-the general presentation. i can't decide what it was. maybe it was just the style, but it kind of grated on me.
-her last sentence of the first contention was a bit of an assumption, because she assumed that because chances of success were marginal, there would never be success
-so was her second contention; because countries already had been discovered, it means they all would try to blackmail or torture to get more info? i know that debate will be opinionated, but i felt like the quotes she used to support her claims were too biased and assuming
-i would have liked to see more hard fact, it's harder to attack than opinionated quotes
AFF
;) like
-The intro was really cool. I liked the story to illistrate the resolution.
-the explanation of justice was cool
-the value and vc explanations and link was very nice
- I actually used some of the same arguments in my case lol
_the end was a beautiful way of smuuing up the main meat and potatos of the case
;( do not like
-I personally don't like a lot of cards. i like toe ohio style slow debate with more anaylisis by the debator rather than lots of cards.
-I like a more structured care where they say ci is... c2 is ...
NEG
;) do like
-the quote is cool
-the case is very organized and short sweet and to the point. this gives her more time for the attack of the 1AC.
-she reconizes that rights are not absolute
- wow beautiful.. she makes her claim, she warrents it then she sums it up wonderful
- says that the intelligence gathering practices actually HERTS the war on terror wow!!! that s awesome
;( not like
-More anaylisis would be good for the V and VC
- though i liked the shortness, i mite like to see a little more anaylisis in some places, but very little. It was really good
Aff case
Likes-the example of Mr. Archie in the intro
-the links between contentions
-how she uses real-world examples in her arguments
-the wording of her connections between the VP and C
Dislikes-the definition for eminent domain. i think it was long and unclear
-her use of assumptions in the arguments
Neg case
Likes-how the contentions were summarized before they were read
-the conclusion
-the links between the VP and C
Dislikes-the quote in the intro. i had a hard time seeing how it was relevant to the resolution
-the length of the contentions. i think some things could be taken out to save time.
~Aff~
Liked:
*How she defined eminent domain to help prove her point.
*That she stated the res clearly.
*She linked everything together and was well organized.
Didn't like:
*How she used the story in the intro. It was as if she was trying to sway the jugdes to her side emotionaly.
*I think she could have analyzed more of her evidence instead of continuing to give more evidence.
~Neg~
Liked:
*It was short yet able give evidence to clarify her side.
*Well organized.
*Last statement rounded up her whole arguement.
Didn't like:
*Definetly could of explained more and used more evidnece.
*The beginiing quote. Didn't see how it was relevent.
Aff
I Liked . . .
-The clear explanation of definitions.
-She states other alternatives to eminant domain for the economy.
I Disliked . . .
-The introduction. It seemed she was fishing around for some sympathy.
Neg
I Liked . . .
-Her restatement at the end, summing it up nicely.
-Her use of contentions and quotes.
I Disliked . . .
-All the evidence was extremely oppinionated.
Post a Comment