Alisa

Round 1
Judge: Arnett Speaker Position: 2A Comments:

2AC

Case Never read evidence unless you need to and never before you've extended relevant 1AC evidence e.g. HSR doesn't solve oil dependence.

CP-Contest the legitimacy of investment mechanism CPs. Give explanation for do both permutation-why could the plan be funded by Bonds? Kritik-make specific link and impact arguments based on your 1AC. Generic arguments make it too easy for the negative. Spending-Point out all the uniqueness arguments from the 1AC. Contest uniqueness/threshold of link e.g. lots of spending now, P3s mitigate link etc.

2AR

Put underview as overview or in impact assessment Switch order to win case before you get to the kritik Keep extension of arguments separate e.g. perm and impact take outs Add a section on why the case outweighs the impact -economy impacts -oil dependency impacts. more than they "dropped our impact" Extend alternative can't solve the case

Redo

much better with overview! Work on adding some structure e.g. Case outweighs the Kritik A) Economic Collapse B) Oil Dependency Think about adding the permutation as part of OV-e.g. View debate through lens of permutation---mitigates the link to the Kritik because rejects state control and---net benefit

Round 8
Neg v. Joseph and Shamita Judge: Rahim

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: She sounded frantic 2) Recommended Drills: Speed drills 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Not nearly enough time on case—needed to go much more indepth on a few arguments and read more cards while indicting 1AC evidence 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: The block double-turned themselves. 2NC read dedev, and the 1NR read elections turns trade and aff doesn’t solve trade. Devastating. Otherwise, the 1NR was way too spread out, needs to either take just the case or the K. Way too shallow on both, not enough link/alt work on the K, not enough depth on the case 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Go in-depth on the case. Look through the 1AC and search through all their warrants, and write arguments for why your cards subsume/answer each argument the 2AC made. Pick and choose which arguments to go for, and read lots of cards on those issues. The 1NR case rampage can be devastating if you do it right, and it’s a valuable speech to practice.

Round 11

Round 11---July 26th---Comments by Linda Pei

 * __2A Comments __**
 * 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: **Good clarity – make sure to make more distinctions between cards and emphasize taglines more.


 * 2) Recommended Drills: ** Practice emphasizing taglines, and I also suggest doing drills where you put in a word between every other word (like “a” or “wow”).


 * 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: **
 * Good 2AC coverage-wise
 * Good analytical arguments
 * You needed to spend more time on the following areas
 * More work on framework
 * More cards against the alternative and more cards that capitalism is inevitable (see below)
 * Framework
 * House of theory – use portable impacts to explain why your interpretation of debate (pretending to be the federal government and evaluating the policy consequences) is a good model
 * Plan focus – extend reasons why you should get to weigh your impacts
 * Case debate – make sure to explicitly extend your impacts, and explain why your truth claims for these impacts are epistemologically correct (prefer our specific evidence, it’s empirically proven, we have studies, etc…)


 * 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2AC evidence
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You need more cards against the alternative
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You need more cards that capitalism is inevitable
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You can use some cards that answer de-development here – for example, the Monbiot evidence indicates that complexity and growth is inevitable, so we have a biological drive to maintain capitalism, making it inevitable


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Framework – this should be your priority, and you need to invest a lot more time here, otherwise you cannot weigh the impacts of your affirmative.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation – this should be your other priority
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Shields/solves the link to the kritik – extend your residual link double-bind here, and also explain that you can do policy action while still recognizing that there are problems with capitalism that we have to fix
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Alternative fails – the case is a disadvantage to the alternative because it doesn’t actually do anything – thus the permutation is the best way to deal with the situation in the short-term
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Talk about your case! If you are not talking about your case in the 2AR against a kritik, you are going to lose. Remind the judge of your plan and your advantages – extinction is inevitable in the status quo.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Re-do your rebuttal with the above suggestions

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; line-height: 24px;">Judge: Arnett <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; line-height: 24px;">Neg vs Yesha/Nina
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; line-height: 24px;">Round 12 **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; line-height: 24px;">1NC

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">CP-save funding solvency evidence for the 2NC. Read external impact for Federalism in the 1NC and then read turns the case in the block. <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">More diversity on the case between the three advantages. You're making it easy for a 2AC to kick hegemony and quickly extend the two other advantages.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">1NR

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">Trying to do too much means you do nothing well. Choose between the CP and the case. <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">CP debate is about solvency. Need to use 1NC evidence. Need to break the plan into different parts and explain why the CP solves each of them.