Chan,+Jennifer

-- I had Jennifer redo a 1AR (that was a great sophomore 1AR to begin with) from Practice Debate #5. There were three things that I wanted her to work on - (1) shadow-covering the Condo debate, (2) answering the drones turn on case better, (3) packaging case arguments more offensively (why the Aff wins the arguments...not why the Negative is not). --I thought Jennifer did a nice job with this redo. I did have her tweak a couple of things - I wanted the answer to the drones turn to be packaged better and tied back to a 1AC case extension. I also wanted her to work on a 1AR Condo Bad block for future shadow-covering. She should work in the pre-round prep time next time she is Aff on a 1AR block that does the following - extend Aff interpretation, two offensive args from the 2AC block, make one defensive argument to a common Neg offensive argument (like "Increase Aff critical thinking) and extend a voter. --She did a nice job shortening up the overview.
 * __Rebuttal Redo from Practice Debate #5 - 1AR - 07/23 - Comments by Tara__**

--She is redoing a 2NR where she went for the States CP (there was no perm). The original judge told you to consider kicking Elections due to some of the in-round mistakes made. --I would rarely, rarely suggest going for a CP with the net-benefit of "solves better". Even though there is not a perm, the 2AR has the last speech and can really make solvency deficits that seem negligible early on appear much more devastating at the end. Chances are your cards are not that good. --What is the rationale for reading a card on the Elections DA in the 2NR? You need to give a brief explanation of the need of this if you are kicking out of the position. --Good to pre-empt no new 2AR arguments. --I would have liked to have heard more cites extended on the States CP. I know they drop it but you need to *win* your argument. --I don't understand the rationale for going for case arguments in this debate that are not linked to federal action. You don't have a DA. Whittling down the case impact does nothing for you since you are claiming to solve the Aff as well - you should only focus on case arguments that are about the federal government.
 * __Rebuttal Redo from Practice Debate #2 - 07/22 - Comments by Tara__**

I have attached the feedback I have for the second set of evidence you turned in on the Oil DA. Overall, very nice job! 
 * __Research Feedback - Wave #2 - Set 2 - 07/22 - Comments by Tara__**

--Jennifer had isolated her Aff goals for the next few debates as being (1) reading more cards in the 1AR, (2) debate off the flow/use a better signposting system, and (3) trying to shadow-flow the 1AR. I will look for these goals throughout the debate. --I actually thought this was a nice reading of the 1AC for one of the first few times that you have read it. You were, overall, pretty clear, even with the longer tags. I would still like to see more volume - I want you to command the room. --Good to frame the case in the 1AR - start this immediately with a description of your impacts and then say they are 100% probable since they were dropped. Always package your overviews as why you are winning, not what the other team did to be losing. --1NR did extend the drones proliferation argument - you need to answer that. --Redo: (1) Tweak your overview as above, (2) Answer the drones turn (extend the 2AC argument), (3) I would like for you to try your hand on shadow extending the condo bad debate, (4) I would like for some of your arguments on the CP to be impacted a bit more. --Outstanding extension on the K. Your double-bind/even if statements were great! My only suggestion is to slow down just a bit on some of those more complicated analyticals. --What is the impact to the terrorism solvency deficit on the CP? --You did a good job picking places to read cards in the 1AR. You met that goal clearly.
 * __Practice Debate #5 - Aff vs. Anja Beth/Isabella - 07/21 - Comments by Tara__**

--I had Jennifer regive her rebuttal from last night. We isolated goals of reading evidence in the 1AR, spending more time answering what the 2NC did cover on the CP, and clarity. --I still would like Jennifer to continue to work on volume. I want her to own the room she is in! :) Smart, winning arguments should be delivered with some vocal punch. :) --It was clear that Jennifer took this redo seriously. Quite a bit of the 1AR was scripted out (which is more than fine). --Structure on case was clear. Good signposting. --Much better balance of time between the case debate and the off-case positions. --Yay! A carded 1AR! --Nice job on this redo!
 * __Rebuttal Redo from Practice Debate #1 - 07/12 - Comments by Tara__**

--You have nice speed and your clarity is very good for a sophomore. This is especially impressive since this is a new 1AC for you to read. :) --I would like for us to increase our volume a bit. We are pushing a lot of breath over our vocal cords, which is causing us to sound "whispery" at times. This is especially true with tags and transition words. We really want to make sure to use our volume to "vocally punch" key words. --I know that it is a new Aff, but always be prepared to have extra cards so you can use up your entire 1AC time. --You did a nice job talking about specifics of your cards from the 1AC...especially considering it is a new Aff! --I was confused by some of your questions in your CX of the 1NC. Too many of your questions were actually statements that were making arguments. Your CX should advance your future arguments but they should not be so blatantly you making statements in the form of questions. :) --You do a nice job signposting in the 1AR on the case arguments - it was clear what negative arguments you were on. --REBUTTAL REDO: (1) I would like for us to work a bit on clarity - for the parts of the 1AR that were typed out, I had difficulty processing what the arguments were; (2) I am not really sure your "new args = voter" is compelling - it is somewhat of an extension of other case arguments plus it is just defense - I thought you lost some ethos by making this argument - you could have answered the argument in the time it took for you to make this voter; (3) I want your rebuttal redo to have 2 cards read - pick two places in the debate that are key "nexus points" of the debate (key places that the debate could be decided on) and read evidence; (4) We spent way too much time on case and not enough time on the CP and DA - you do need to answer what the 2NC said on the CP - you just extended through his ink - he did have arguments on quite a few of your 2AC arguments.
 * __Practice Debate #1 - Aff vs. Ari/James - Comments by Tara__**

__ **Elections DA - Block Extension Speeches - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Nate** __ --Students were asked to create a five minute Negative block speech to extend an Obama Good Elections DA. Students were given the 1NC shell and a file of potential cards they could use for their extensions. They used their own 2ACs from the night before as the 2AC to answer when they gave the extension speech. --Nice speed and clarity, especially as you continue into the speech, but the beginning is a little bit confusing because you were speaking into the computer and you weren’t making dilineations between arguments and words in a way that would have made it easy for a judge to understand. --The numbering system you had was pretty confusing—want to use the 2ac numbering system to make your arguments. If you want to make your own. Then do 2ac-1—and then your own a and b and c. Otherwise its kind of confusing. --Try to be louder—especially with your impact calculus because you are just reading a big block of text and it got a little bit slurre --Great impact calculus! Continue to make these comparisons between the plan’s internal link to warming and the disad. --Don’t necessarily want to script the overview 100% because you are more likely to stumble and in a regular debate wouldn’t necessarily have the time. --Don’t rely solely on numbers but also on the segment of the debate in case the judge missed a number, he/she will know where the Uniquness, Link, etc. debate is --Want to do more link work and make comparisons between the evidene instead of merely referencing there’s --Their argument about Obama winning, I understood as an “Obama will win no matter what card”, in which case you want to be reading ev. That says the election will be close or theres some sort of brink --This philosophy thing is confusing --Prolif is a sort of questionable thing to read new in the 2nc—really easy to impact turn—especially without a great defense of it