Debate+Comments---Nidhi

Round 1 - Miles
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: - Go faster on the text of 2ac cards - Say condo 2) Recommended Drills: none 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: - Great time allocation off case - Less time on case - group things more efficiently - said a couple of things more than once - too inefficient on the stimulus debate 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: - Great comparative impact calc in the 2ar - don't do it on the case though, since the neg started it on politics - if you're going to compare heg to Iran strikes, then you might as well do it on elections to line it up with the neg's impact calc 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: - 2AC needs to be more ninja-like ---you're too fast to not mess with the block more - make more theory args, read more add-ons, etc 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - Go for one less arg in the 2ar --- you did a lot of good comparisons on Florida and UQ, but were not as good at extending the link UQ arg - you did hardly any comparison on that arg, so that would've been time better spent doing more analysis

Round 2---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Neg vs Abla & Elliot

__2NC__ When kicking out of stuff, you should use anything you can on that flow – like when kicking out of states, you could extend the 1NC solvency card because it makes a “federal government inefficient/fails” argument. Anything you can do like this to make the 1AR’s job harder is beneficial – a block where you’re only really extending the DA and the case could benefit from some horizontal proliferation, making the 1AR have to go to more sheets of paper, etc. Make a bigger deal of places the 2AC was weak – she didn’t really answer econ impact D, for example, and you kind of just proceeded as though she had – use opportunities like this to make a good judge connection, argue against new 1AR args, etc. The way you debated most of the case arguments was very good – a lot of depth, a lot of smart uses of 1NC arguments, you read just the right amount of evidence, etc. I just wish there had been some more offense mixed in. Even the “Keynes bad” portion of the 2NC was primarily defensive.

__2NR__ You could have gone for “Obama solves warming” as offense in the 2NR if you hadn’t read impact defense to warming in the block – this should be an easy strategic calculation because the 2AC didn’t say that Obama doesn’t solve warming – so you basically have an “elect Obama” CP that is guaranteed to solve warming – reading impact D allows them to kick out of the whole thing – instead, you should have just made internal link/solvency args in the block and conceded their impact evidence. The DA turns the case section of politics was a little cheesy – a draft? Really? On the case, you tended to get bogged down in some issues that just weren’t all that important – like, has anyone in this debate established that the housing market is all that important to anything? There’s no real need to spend time extending your defense to stuff like this. When you extend solvency args like “no ridership,” be sure to impact those in terms of the case – like, I could imagine concluding that the aff solved the economy simply through the stimulative effect of building HSR, even if ridership was low – so you should do the work in connecting your ridership arg to take out specific advantages. Instead of framing the “no challengers” arg as “they have to have evidence that there will be challengers,” you should phrase your argument more strongly – establish why challengers are unlikely, don’t just point out that you think they lack ev on it – that just opens the door for them to simply re-explain their arg and thereby answer yours. I think you could/should have extended some of the “Keynes bad” arguments in the 2NR – especially with some time gained by cutting down on the less important stuff as mentioned above.

Round 3---Comments by Layne Kirshon
Aff vs Andrew & John

1A: -both 1ac and 1ar were unclear at the beginning - be quieter and slower when you start - cleared up within 30 seconds but beginning was rough -more offense on the K in the 1AR - too much time spent on perm and intrinsicness (though the latter was a smart cross application from state fiat) -great extension of condo - def pressured 2nr, but a c/i of unconditionality is a doozy - make it c/i 1 conditional. -more general comment for the aff: attack the magnitude of the internal link vis-a-vis its sufficiency to cause the impact. the DA goes from like romney will piss off russia to impact calc that's based on russia having a lot of nukes. a PO'd putin doesn't mean they first strike, that's silly. -focus more on putin n/u the DA than start solves - start is UQ for the DA bc it means rels high now but romney will screw it up. BUT, if putin is recalcitrant no matter what (which is likely and which the neg didn't really answer) then its tough for them to win romney makes much of a difference. ESPECIALLY since quote from the 1nr was "we don't need to win rels collapse just a chill"

Round 4---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs Kaycee & Olivia

good speaking voice--liked that i could hear most of the cards 1NR -- look at me overview is too reexplanatory extend extinction impact to warming answer link turn with how it's spun get to impact defense faster--maybe answer it in your overview

Round 5---Comments by Robel Worku
Aff vs Debnil & Madhu

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: --terminal impact defense on the da. i guess wasnt totally necessar because ben ended up reading start defense in the 1ar. --double-turn argument was cool/interesting - doubly useful because it made the shift cp totally useless --diggin the protectionism add-on --i thought the case coverage was good. definitely forced to spend some time there, but i thought you were really efficient --efficient on the states cp - product of 1ac structure --not sure how good the frieght stuff is, but maybe some more answers there? havent read any cards on this business

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: --i thought the impact work at the top of the 2ar was awesome. one thing i would do differently (maybe this is just me, idk) but structure it in some fashion (letters, numbers) just to make it seem more organized/easier to flow --i think you spend a little too much time on the case. seemed like you got a little bogged down and you could've used more time on the uniqueness debate --essentially went for hegemony as impact defense to russia relations. explain it a little more offensively i guess. they've spotted you an interal link (even if it's really bad) so you should reorient your impact work a in that direction (though I thought the stuff you did on the economy advantage was awesome) 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 6---Comments by Linda Pei
Neg vs Abla & Elliot __2N Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You should work on clarity and stamina.

2) Recommended Drills: Do over-enunciation drills and pen drills, and you should also read for extended periods of time to build up endurance.

3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments:
 * Spend more time on collapse inevitable debate
 * Their economy uniqueness proves structural factors in the economy that the plan can’t fix, and suggest collapse is inevitable.
 * Ikenberry evidence – why’d you tell your partner to scratch it? This card has excellent utility in the debate
 * The card doesn’t say the economy checks great power wars – it says political institutions are used by rising powers like China to achieve leverage, instead of war, which proves a transition will be peaceful.
 * Nuclear revolution makes war irrelevant – you can use this to feed your impact at the top of the dedevelopment debate about how nuclear war won’t happen and won’t cause extinction – use this as a framing issue.
 * Too much time spent on the innovation debate
 * Less cards, more explanation – these cards were useless because you did not really extend these cards in the 2NR anyway
 * More time on the mindset shift and collapse inevitable debate

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * In general, for the 2NC you need to read less cards on the innovation and do more explanation and evidence comparison elsewhere

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR:
 * Organization
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Compartmentalization – you need to compartmentalize the de-development debate more – it’s essentially a disadvantage, so group the debate into uniqueness, link, and impact.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Uniqueness debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Collapse inevitable – you need to spend a lot more time on this, and use “collapse now solves extinction, but collapse later causes extinction” as a framing issue – you don’t ever articulate why collapse now as opposed to later is good.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Mindset shift coming now – you are also way behind on this debate – you need to describe specific movements that are stirring in the status quo, and spend more time explaining why these movements are sustainable post-collapse.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Innovation debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Technology bad – you don’t really explain why technology is bad and innovation can’t solve – your only argument is “technology will be used to hurt labor,” which doesn’t have much relation to de-development.

<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 re-do with the above suggestions.

Round 7---Comments by Seth Gannon
Aff vs AV Jordan-Cole

1A Comments • Excellent 1AR. Choose a moment or two to connect with the judge a bit more – you’re moving at full speed from the first second to the last. 1ARs are all about sense of urgency, but you can afford two instances of dramatic emphasis. • Let’s use their conditionality answers against them on states? Maybe worth it to extend conditionality instead • Add one line at the top of the advantage: what is the one big argument that turns the debate your way? “If their turn is non-unique, the impact’s inevitable, and any aff solvency outweighs!” Say something like that to the judge, either at the top of the flow or as the last thing you say before leaving the page—leave them with that powerful thought, which then frames your opponent’s 2NR. 1N Comments • I like this 1NC, esp. the heavy dose of case offense • Let’s read a pile of cards on other reasons Romney turns the case – bad for oil! Bad for economy! • I would eliminate “group the link debate” from your vocabulary. Walk through each 2AC answer one by one (citing each one by 2AC number and a short summary). If you think you’ve already answered something, cite the redundant argument on its own and say, “I already answered this on the (X) argument above”—to avoid any ambiguity about what has been answered.

Round 8---Comments by Garrett Abelkop
Neg vs GR Patrick-Anjay

1NR -T debating was pretty good – but I think it could be better. -Better explanation of what the topic looks like under your interp and how that’s diff (case lists)

Round 10---Comments by John Warden
Neg vs AV Rebecca-Clara

• Great debating on the counterplan solvency deficits and the case – good evidence comparison • Be careful about the args you’re making for conditionality and 50 state fiat • Great job on the politics da—impact comparison and uniqueness in particular—need to choose to go for either the cp or the case defense and do so more efficiently • I’d consider just kicking the no retaliation part of the CP – had a card that said we wouldn’t retaliate anyway, and there’s no Additional Comments about the Debate: