Swoap,+Anja+Beth

--I had Anja Beth redo her 2NC from yesterday's practice round with a diligent focus on structure - we wanted clear signposting and answering 2AC arguments in order. This is what I primarily focused on when watching this redo. --Still want her to slow down on overviews/first few words of the speech...it sounded much better when I said "clearer" about 10 seconds in to the speech. --So far, signposting on the CP is perfect (we are on 2aC 4). Her speech is much easier to flow and she is going in 2aC order. She sounds more in control of the speech and there is more engagement with Aff arguments - i.e. direct clash - instead of just reading cards that may or may not apply somewhere. --Pretty good on the "Perm: Do the CP" - I would like to hear the words "CP functionally bans the plan" - a lot of debate is about packaging arguments in ways that judges are used to and in the most offensive ways.
 * __Speech Redo from Practice Debate #5 - 07/22/2012 - Comments by Tara__**

--Anja Beth had isolated her goals for the next few Negative debates as (1) comparative impact calculus between advantages/case/DAs, etc, (2) more warrant explanation on the case debate, and (3) going for the K and being indepth on the framework. I will be looking for these in this debate. --I thought you had a very solid CX of the 1AC. --Is Elections a net-benefit to Privatization CP? I don't think it is... --Slow down on your overviews. --I had to stop Anja Beth about a minute into the speech - I had no idea if she was still in the CP overview OR answering the line-by-line when she started talking about the Perm (the third argument in the flow). I stopped Anja Beth and had her put her speech doc in the order of the 2AC (2AC 1 was Condo, 2AC 2 was Elections links to CP, 2AC 3 was PDB). We also need to do signposting. Anja Beth told me that she was told to not say "they say Condo". We are not at the point for embedded clash yet since the first minute was just literally her reading whatever was on her computer and not debating off the flow. For now, I am having Anja Beth do pretty rigid signposting "2AC 1...they say Condo Bad". Once we have that down, we can move to just saying "The Condo debate". --I stopped Anja Beth the second time of the 2NC to slow down the overview. It was delivered at top speed - major clarity issues. When I had her slow down, it was MUCH better. --I stopped her again on the line-by-line when we skipped 2AC argument #2. --Good arguments to the permutation. --Good to cross-apply both case cards and CP shell cards from the 1NC. --Anja Beth has great arguments but there were some fundamentals that were lacking. We have our flow up there, but we just seem to be debating off the computer, not the flow. 2NC, before the start-stops, was out of order from 2AC and missed 2AC arguments. I watched Anja Beth as well and we had flows in hand, but rarely looked at them. --We have good speed, but we have some clarity issues. --Do more with "Perm: Do the CP". Think about what the CP does. It functionally bans the plan (it rolls back all regulations on private industry and stops investment). How can the plan be included in the CP? This needs to be stated more clearly. --I thought the framework debate in the 2NC was good. --We had the same organizational issues on the K - we did not have answers in order of 2AC arguments and we were not signposting. --Redo: I want you to redo the 2AC - I want us to nail down the organization and signposting. I am going to be diligent with you about this - every set of arguments needs to be tied to something on the flow. I need to know where to flow things. Right now, I am just flowing straight down. I also want us to work on clarity of text of cards and clarity with overviews. I also would like to see more argumentation on the permutation - is there some analyticals to make (i.e. any residual link means the permutation is not net-beneficial, any theory arguments?). --Good to narrow down the debate in the 2NR. Our kickouts should not be quite as blippy. On the CP, the best kick-out is to extend the permutation - you should extend the permutation and state that it is only a test of competition. On the Elections DA, which 2AC argument specifically are you extending? Extend the warrant to why there is no impact. I know this is picky, but you don't want the 2AR able to resurrect anything. --We desperately need an overview in this debate as to why the K wins you the debate. The overview should explain why the Aff is entrenched in the mindset you are kritiking, explain briefly what the alternative is and why it solves, and the impact to the K. --This is just a "packaging of your argument" comment, but it is a pretty big deal. I felt your 2NR was too defensive. It was all about just going and answering 1AR extensions on the K. We are not doing enough explanation of winning your argument. It takes a while to reorient your brain - yes, the 2NR should answer 1AR arguments but that is one piece. The larger piece is winning your argument...explaining key components and how it applies and outweighs the Aff.
 * __Practice Debate #5 - Neg vs. Jennifer/Niti - 07/21/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

---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. --Put impact calculus at the top (not sure if they were supposed to or not for the purposes of this speech) --Number or letter your arguments – just add a little more structure – it was a little hard to tell when you were transitioning between your different args --Speedy and clear – nice --Good signposting --You have some impact calculus throughout some of the bottom of the flow – just put that at the top
 * __Elections DA Negative Block Speech - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Robel__ **