Debate+Comments---Olivia

Round 1---Comments by Nathan Bennett
July 11 Aff vs Kaycee & Stryker

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good clarity at the beginning of speech—keep doing that Maybe try making the tags shorter/more efficient You sort of slurred the words within the cards—watch for that Pause longer between flows during the 1ac and before the plan text—makes it easier Why would you say it costs a lot of money? CX—the line of questioning is good on the K, but try to make sure you question not what the link is, but how the alt solves The top half of the 1ar has really good explanation and is comparative, but you don’t have the time to be doing a lot of this—the case needs to be significantly more efficient—don’t just read the scripted stuff you already have but respond to their arguments--

2) Recommended Drills: Over-enunciation, saying a word between other words You were sometimes hard to understand because you didn’t separate thoughts enough.

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: the 1ar did a good job of this on the case and K, but less so on the rest of the debate—you needed to do a lot more on the CP/DA strat because theres almost no offense on either for the 2ar to work with

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: More time on the DA/CP strategy

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Spend less time on the case and K, and make sure you give the 2ar more to work with on PTX as well as the CP

None You were a little bit sporadic in the 2NC on the CP solvency arguments --- you answered investment in more than one place and weren't great on the funding tradeoff DA. Try to sectionalize the 2NC into the aff's main components like 1) theory 2) perm 3) solvency deficits a) investment b) coordination 4) tradeoff Need to do more direct comparison on the UQ debate in the 2nr - you were pretty good about extending your args but not amazing at answering there's. Also need to be a little better on the econ turn and Impact D to Iran I think you should've gone for the K - the 1ar was better relatively on ptx than the K and it would've been more strategic More concerted effort to answer Iran impact D Concise impact calc at the top Sectionalize the debate more to make it cleaner organizationally
 * Round 2 - Miles**
 * 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal:**
 * 2) Recommended Drills:**
 * 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments:**
 * 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:**
 * 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR:**
 * 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:**

Round 3---Comments by Linda Pei
Neg vs Joel & Mark

__2N Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You are pretty fast, but you should work on volume and emphasis.

2) Recommended Drills: Along with doing pen drills, you should work on varying your tone/volume/emphasis when differentiating between taglines and arguments.

3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: - You spent a lot of time on theory – about 3 minutes. You can reduce this time by doing a few things. - Great job on the bonds counterplan! I thought it was very strategic to concede the normal means argument and then make arguments about severance. But I think you could have handled this a lot better – you should make the argument that normal means = bonds, but their plan specifies federal government bonds. Thus the counterplan is still competitive and permutation do the counterplan is not legitimate. Then your severance arguments become a lot more persuasive.
 * First, on topicality, you can use some of the affirmative argument’s against them – for example with they say literature checks abuse, and reasonability is best, these are all reasons that will help you theoretically defend your counterplans.
 * And second, you should pick one or two standards and use them to beat back their theory arguments and outweigh and turn their individual standards.

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: - Make sure to do more link evidence comparison in the 2NR on politics.

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: - You spread yourself too thin in the 2NR – instead of taking case, the counterplan, and politics, you only need the counterplan and politics and the deficit spending debate. The counterplan solves the entirety of case, so you don’t need to spend time on the other advantages. You didn’t have enough time to beat them on case anyway, especially since the 1AR spent a disproportionate amount of time on case. This will give you much more time in the 2NR to spend on politics. - You should make more even if arguments
 * You should make the argument that even if you lose the stimulus debate, you solve back their five other internal links to the economy, and you should explain why these internal links outweigh

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

Round 4---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Aff vs Nidhi & Ben

cross ex—quick note to be careful about “businessmen” 1AR get to the D/A with more time--MUST answer all of the impact calculus at the top of the 1NR -turns case arguments -the warming arguments (they never read defense--so it's an extinction-level impact to the D/A whereas you have "kicked" or not extended your adv) -need to be less shallow and more explanatory--you tend to make arguments tautologically: "only the government can solve keynesian economics because it's the government"--this will get easier when you think about a STRATEGY before the 1AR and realize where you MUST be explanatory -disconnect between 2AC and 1AR--ex: different ways of explaining your heg adv -need to match up to block answers better--ex: when they say "economic decline resilient--the fed solves"--you can extend your jobs internal link but connect it: "Fiscal policy is bottomed out--only generating structural demand in the economy through innovation solves"--

Round 5---Comments by Zane Waxman
Neg vs Blake & Tyler You were fast but could do with some increased clarity. Also, START OUT SLOWER. You did a good job debating the case, but, I would have liked to see more/better debating on stimulus fails/internal link turns to the econ advantage. you needed to integrate examples from history to disprove their claims, compare the aff to the original Obama stimulus---use examples going back to the New Deal, if possible. This was done better during the redoes, and I thought the level of debating was higher. Still, you would have been well-served to integrate more indicts/critiques of their evidence into your extension of Keynes Wrong (for example, some of the ev they read was referencing other stimulus actions that have been tried and failed)---also, you should cite some economic data/stats to prove your argument, it would substantiate a lot of the arguments you were making and make you seem more credible. Also, difficult for the aff to answer in the 1ar if they haven’t thought through the quantitative aspects of their argument. And, it’s incredibly difficult to be efficient on case in the 1ar if the 2NC was really high-tech.

Round 6---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs Julian & Elliot

Clarity in the 1AC was really good – I could flow every cite and virtually all the card texts were easily intelligible. Bearden as the impact? I know it’s a camp file, but geez, switch that out. Nuclear terror scenario – could make a negligence doctrine arg to make the impact more specific.

CX: Need a better answer to “what is substantially more funding” CX question

__1AR:__ Topicality – too much saying “they don’t have a warrant that…” rather than making the counter-argument yourself. Don't just point out their lack of an argument. Case: awesome job pointing out the double turn – BUT – given that you’re conceding a double-turn, you need to reframe the way you debate other stuff. On the CP – don’t extend a permutation – you want to concede that the CP is competitive and that it avoids politics – all you want to say is that it doesn’t solve the case. Also – you said that one-half of a potential double-bind was that the CP might link to politics! No no no! They can concede that to get out of the double turn and just win if it just solves the case better.

Round 7---Comments by Linda Pei
Neg vs AV Cailin-Rachel


 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2N Comments __**
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">We’ve talked about this – be more aggressive and sassy and unleash your inner badass!


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2) Recommended Drills: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You should practice speaking with more volume and do pen drills.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Counterplan
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Make the distinction between the plan and the counterplan more clear.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Impact out this distinction
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">They don’t have any evidence that says states and local entities want to apply for funds – the counterplan guarantees this.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The counterplan also is immediate and avoids a bureaucratic process – the plan requires entities to apply for government funds and to match them, which is long and cumbersome and can deter possible investment.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">“Necessary vs sufficient” – even if you don’t have as many funds as would be ideal, you still have //sufficient// funds to solve, and politics disadvantage impacts outweigh any solvency deficit.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More organization
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Don’t skip around on the flow, and don’t “go back” to the counterplan.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Cross-x of the 2NC
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You need to do a better job of describing the world in which Romney is president, and why he would renege on all of Obama’s policies.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Talk about election promises and rhetoric – Romney has made his foreign policy promises based on being more “American” – that is, more independent of countries like Russia and more aggressive in terms of Iran strikes.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You need to do more evidence comparison on the link and uniqueness debate in politics and indicts of their politics card authors.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You need to do more evidence comparison on the link and uniqueness debate in politics and indicts of their politics card authors.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Good 2NR choice – I think this stopped you from spreading yourself out so much
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Impact calculus
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Iran strikes would turn their ports affirmative – Iran controls the strait of Hormuz, which controls oil and an enormous chunk of global trade – this accesses their economic collapse impact.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Russia relations – if your Russia relations card talks about how you access many impacts, you could argue that good US-Russia relations can help solve terrorism and increase cooperation in ports.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Keynes debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Stimulus spending’s multiplier effect is more true for projects like HSR, which help the public. Poorer people will not get any trickle down effect from fortifying ports that are probably thousands of miles away from them.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Jobs debate – I think you are on the right side of the jobs debate – port security would mostly involve detection systems. And even though it does use people, it doesn’t take highly skilled workers to press a button to man a machine, or pat down a suspicious looking person.


 * <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;">Give your speech with the above suggestions.

Round 8---Comments by Seth Gannon
Aff vs AV Mike-Sarthak

Very nice debating all around. • Why is the economy unsustainable? What is the plan? First tag has no context • This Khalilzad card seems like an issue. If he says stimulus is bad… • 1AR: can we use the Cap K stuff against dedev? • Extending our various solvency for the economy doesn’t help beat dedev – they’re saying the growth is unsustainable b/c it will use all our resources • We have to deal with “upswings cause war.” • Why don’t we extend conditionality in the correct place in the line by line? • What is your argument for why Growth Bad isn’t a net benefit to the CP? It only solves Asia. • I’m not sure we can read new impacts to their elections DA in the 1AR, even if they hadn’t kicked it correctly.

Round 9---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs GR Jack-Jon

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally fine. 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Conditionality answers could improve – try to tie your offensive arguments to the house in terms of the kinds of practices conditionality promotes and why those make debate valuable. I think your second “framing issue” on econ is wrong, or at least not as clear-cut as you think – the aff probably can win the economy advantage without the stimulus internal link as long as they win the other ones. Try to clash explicitly with the 2AC case arguments – when you think their coverage was inadequate, the best way to exploit that is to thoroughly refute the arguments they do make – just saying they didn’t answer it and extending your argument gives the 1AR the chance to get back in the game on some of these questions by extending the 2AC’s bad (but dropped) argument. Your first answer to oil doesn’t make sense – even if the trains run on coal rather than renewables, the advantage is about how dependence on oil in particular is bad. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good use of evidence to develop the economy turns and defense in the 2NC. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: Go for the warming impact – it’s dropped and an existential risk, whereas “no retaliation” was one of the 1AR’s limited elections answers. You need to collapse down to the best 1NR arguments on elections – extending every 1NR argument is not an effective strategy. They had answers to the Petro turn in the 1AR meaning you should probably just abandon it. It’s not clear if you’re trying to win the debate on econ offense or just win defense – that should determine how much time you spend here and which arguments you go for. Regardless, the advice about choosing fewer arguments applies on this flow as well – you shouldn’t leave it to the judge to sift through all your args for the round-winners. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Implement the changes to 2NR strategy described above, with a focus on choosing fewer arguments.