Debate+Comments---Debnil

Round 1---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs Blake & Tyler

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally good – slow down on analytics. 2) Recommended Drills: Work on increasing speed while maintaining clarity – reading evidence backwards, reading cards for 10 min+ to increase endurance+spead. 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Case extension was strong technically – I think you should replace one or two of the cards with explanation/extension of the numerous 1nc cards, since those are wasted otherwise. I think you need more time on the K – make sure you answer the perm. I think you underestimate how threatening some of these args are – “cap solves war” and “greed inev” undermine large parts of your argument so ideally you’d have cards answering Bandow’s interdependence args and the claim that humans are naturally greedy. You could extend T – because their interpretation is not exclusive, the limits DA is huge and it’s difficult for them to win. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good use of 2NC cards to advance the case debate and develop the K – I think you could use your K evidence more effectively/explicitly in the 2nr. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: The K was the path of most resistance – I thought the econ turns or elections would be relatively clean kills, whereas you dropped the perm on the K and were also forced to develop the link debate further in the 2nr. I think there’s some tension between reading large-scale policy-ish impact while reading an alt about our individual moral orientation toward capitalism – not an expert on this K but you might want to decide what scale you want your args to be about. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: If you do go for the K, I think you should use the dropped framework args to make the advantages and perm irrelevant – reallocate some of that time to answering the Bandow and greed inevitable arguments better. Additional Comments about the Debate:

Round 2---Comments by Nathan Bennett
Aff vs Julian & Shaun

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Try to make sure to start a little slower/clear—otherwise awesome! I can hear every word you said—keep that up even as you get faster. I’m not sure how different some of these different warrants are for stimulus—try to make them seem more distinct or else just take them out maybe. That was a good CX, but you want to move on faster if you don’t get the answer you want—make sure Good job backflowing!

2) Recommended Drills:

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good extension of evidnec—do more of this on the case as you get more familiar with their stuff

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Good job on states on theory but you may have spent too long especially because they dropped the solvency defecit argument I think you could’ve gotten away with we meet here because it is totally dropped—either form of the we meet would be fine This would all give you more time for politics—you need to go in with a better strategy—either go for uniqueness overwhelms the link evidence or something else to get you back a time advantage—you want to do more work on the internal link/impact debate because I think you have some good arguments that could’ve used more fleshing out I think you didn’t need to do the case o/v as well as the case extenstion because these got kind of repetitive. Instead do this on the line by line and impact these arguments there as well. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Tighter 1ar on T and case and CP, more time on PTX

Round 3---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Neg vs Zach & Elsa

Don’t begin the CX with the “if the plan’s such a good idea, why hasn’t it passed” CX question. The question about the Khalilzad card and deficits was good, but you gave up WAY too soon – you just took their answer for granted rather than pushing it, when you really could have gotten a lot more utility out of it.

2NC: the section on the economy advantage was fantastic – really great debating – great use of 1NC ev, distinctions, debating warrants, etc. The only problem was that it left the oil advantage a little under-covered in the block. Ideally you should cut some of the time out of the economy advantage on places where you were already ahead (like impact D) and could read fewer cards, and spend that time to develop the same level of explanation on the oil advantage. I thought the 2NC on states was great as well – you covered everything adequately, read the right amount of cards, etc.

2NR: You should use your economy defense to take out their China impact as well – if you win that economically interdependent countries don’t fight, then that also disproves the likelihood of a US-China war. I’m not sure that kicking the CP was the right choice – the aff hadn’t impacted their solvency deficits very much, and you’d read comparative ev on a lot of the central solvency questions in the block. Just like the 2NC, I thought the 2NR was very very light against the oil advantage – and that matters even more in this 2NR, when you’re not going for a CP.

Round 5---Comments by Robel Worku
Neg vs Nidhi & Ben

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: --liked the arg on megaregions - if it's necessary, and they don't solve it, the other internal links don't matter --make dealing with the protectionism impact cleaner - ended up being SORT OF a big deal in the 1ar --deal with straight turns on freigh and airlines’ 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: --thought you were good on condo in the 2nr --could've used more time on the bottom of the economy flow - even if you win a lot of your econ defense, that airlines biznaz sorta spots them a new internal link to hegemony - means heg defense needs to be more prioritized --smae good w/ overview in the 2nr - espcially important here bc it sorta forces you to be more efficient --great on the link debate in the 2nr --better explain the implication of this w/-in cities argumen 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 6---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Aff vs Stryker & Taylor


 * Speaking style
 * o You’re very clear—I think you could be a bit louder when you talk though—try to punch out words that are useful in the cards—at times you sound monotonous
 * § Another option is to slow down on tags and punch those words—breaks up the sound of your voice
 * o Make a bit more eye contact or connection with the judge when delivering the 1AC
 * § Always have presence and target the judge—you tend to burry yourself in your computer
 * 1AC Cross-ex
 * o Answer questions and talk to the judge!
 * § You just answer questions into your computer
 * 1AR
 * o make MULTIPLE conditional worlds args in the 1AR
 * § use the 1NR’s “you can kick the alt” as a supercharged link to the neg being a moving target—MP worlds are even worse when the alt is nebulous
 * o I didn’t think you needed to go to the states flow
 * o K—frame her argument that the alt doesn’t preclude all technology as a justification for the permutation
 * § Use the language of the 1NR when citing the France/Germany examples—“we have a test case”
 * § Attack the alt better—I’m not sure why this died—also point out that they don’t have a damn impact—get a little indignant here
 * § I did think you spent too long on the K without much jive on the d/a—I probably would have still gone for UQ/link turns
 * o Elections—
 * § Answer impact calc and turns case args!!
 * § UQ overwhelms the link doesn’t make too much sense
 * § UQ overwhelms the link doesn’t make too much sense

Round 7---Comments by Garrett Abelkop
Aff vs GR Patrick-Anjay

1NC CX -Read “the best” line of your evidence that says PC will block passage – don’t ask open-ended questions for specific lines in the other team’s evidence 1AR -Real good -No need to go to the case flows – just mention important args on the K “case outweighs” argument -Arg selection – extended a little too much – be a bit more choosey – better to extend a smaller number of more developed arguments than a larger number of less developed arguments (maybe no permutation – just framework/case outweighs, capitalism good, trans wars, no root cause) -Use timeframe analysis -Larger connection on the fact that the block didn’t really respond specifically to any of your arguments

Round 8---July 26th---Comments by Linda Pei
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good clarity, work on being louder.
 * __2N Comments__**

2) Recommended Drills: Practice speaking with more volume, especially on cards, where your speaking can get a little bit high and breathy. I suggest doing drills for an extended period of time to build up endurance.

3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments:
 * Great job on theory debates – you have definitely learned and understood the house of theory!

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * You need to do more 2NR evidence comparison on politics and the counterplan

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR:
 * Case debate
 * Zey evidence – make sure you explicitly answer this – it’s simple – they don’t increase growth, they only maintain it and prevent it from collapsing.
 * Counterplan
 * Explicitly point out that the judge should get to kick the counterplan for you and you should get to weigh the status quo.
 * Answer PICs are bad – even though you don’t think your counterplan is a PIC, you need to answer this. And the affirmative is on the right side of the argument – you are a PIC – you are PICing out of the matching funds of the plan.
 * Bioterrorism disadvantage
 * Make sure you explicitly point out the link – states can’t deficit spend so they have to make internal budget trade-offs, and bioterror will be first on the chopping block
 * Explain why your framing issues are good
 * Issue-specific uniqueness
 * Link determines the direction of uniqueness – uniqueness is inconclusive and changes every day

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:
 * Give your re-do with the above suggestions.


 * Round 9 - Miles**

1) Speed/clarityissues with constructive or rebuttal: Need to start slower at the beginning of the 1ac/be moreclear 2) RecommendedDrills: Pen drill for 5 minutes going as fast as you can while beingreally clear. Then start reading conversational speed and slowly slow up tillyou're going at a smooth rate that's fast, but you shouldn't behuffing/puffing/breathing crazy/etc. Basically be speaking normally but anaccelerated rate 3) Assessuse of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Not enough time spent answering their reponses to your 2acanswers --- you just extended your args on ptx without really reacting to theblock's --- for example, you just said "TI bill thumps the DA"without answering it's not perceived as new spending and ppl thought it wasbeneficial Need a little more warranted analysis on the stimulus partof the debate 4)Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Don't extend condo --- it detracted too much time frompolitics and meant you were rushed elsewhere Spend less time on the solvency deficit to the CP --- youare investing so much time in theory that you don't have much time for thesolvency deficit, esp since it's a yes or no thing that you don't have to spendmuch time on at all 5)Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Dont' extend the funding solvency deficit --- as of the 2ac/1arit's not an arg Should've extended the perm instead of theory --- it's justan amendment CP! Be a little more concise on theory if you are going toextend it --- isolate your 2 main points of offense at the top and then quicklygroup/answer their args

Round 10---Comments by Seth Gannon
Neg vs AV Cailin-Rachel

• When kicking something, declare intentions first. • Glad you kicked the DA in the 2NC. 1NR can just lock in. • Need a clear 2NC overview on the CP: The money is already allocated – no need for new funding. “Budget-neutral option” is what their 1AC evidence describes. • You should say “presumption is still toward less change” on the CP in the 2NC. • Why would judge kick CP for you? Maybe still worth saying but definitely worth some thought. • I think you need to kick dedev explicitly. Doesn’t your “bioterror turns econ” argument double turn with the dedev turns? Both plan + CP solve one scenario for the economy, and only the plan destroys the economy…