Debate+Comments---Mark

Round 1 - Miles
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: - Start out a little slower in 1ac 2) Recommended Drills: pen maybe 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: - Group args more strategically - did the uq debate on ptx in more than one place - Pretty good comparison of ev though in general - didn't just extend your args, but also answered the other team's 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: - Good, but need to condense down the 1AR and go for less - go a little deeper on the few args you pick to go for - States theory needed to be cleaner - you basically extended your one education arg but didn't explain enough how it interacted with their args 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Condense down on politics a little more - UQ, Florida link turn, Impact D is what I suggest --- don't have time for the other misc args you went for - they just detract from you answering distinctions the block made Try to be a little more efficient on case --- sectionalize the debate more - frontload/tag your arguments so you can then just give a quick warrant and move on

Round 3---Comments by Linda Pei
Aff vs Kaycee & Olivia

__1A Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You are a great speaker – you are very fast and clear. I like how you emphasize taglines and pronounce author names clearly.

2) Recommended Drills: You should do drills for extended periods of time because towards the end of your speech, you get tired and lose speed and clarity. Something you could do is give your 1AC twice in a row, to build up endurance.

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: - You should have read more cards on politics in the 1AR.

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: - Case debate - Bonds CP – make sure to make a “counterplan links to politics” argument. - Politics disadvantage
 * Time allocation – you spent way too much time on case and didn’t get to the politics disadvantage with nearly enough time.
 * You should have kicked the oil dependence advantage – there was little strategic utility in having two advantages at this point, since the negative team’s big strategy was the counterplan, which would solve the advantage. It also is the weaker of the two advantages and has a long timeframe.
 * Accessing the oil dependence advantage – even though you should kick the oil dependence advantage, you can still go for the impacts via your economy advantage.
 * If the economy declines, the US won’t have the resources to sustain its Asia pivot.
 * Their warrant for why the US and China won’t go to war is economic interdependence, so if the economy collapses, war between the two becomes inevitable.
 * You should spend more time on the deficit spending debate, especially since it’s a disadvantage to the counterplan. Instead of just repeating previous arguments, you need to make distinctions and describe why your benefits to stimulus spending outweigh the disadvantages.
 * Get to the politics disadvantage with much more time
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Extend your link turns

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- Give your re-do with the above suggestions.

**Round 5 - Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: None 2) Recommended Drills: None 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Need to do more comparisons / warranted analysis --- the 2nc went really deep on the case so your 1ar has to compensate. Divide the debate up into different sections on the econ flow and that will help make your speech more organized. Needed more analysis on why economic collapse was inev now and need to answer the investment turn - it was a separate 2nc DA --- you have to watch out for bombs like that! 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Inefficient on answering T/C on politics --- spent too long answering their overview I would go for one less arg on politics so you can do more analysis on the args you do go for - maybe don't go for the link non-uniques and spend a bit more time answering the independents link 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Slow down a little in the 1ar so you have more time to string together full args

Round 6---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs Andrew & Jon

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Don’t stand up from prep until you are finished. Asked good, specific questions in CX---need to use more historical examples of economic decline that didn’t cause global conflict to prove your point, ask them about history. Slow down for theory a little bit. 2NC needs to be entirely reallocated---if they are reading an econ and trade aff obviously they link to capitalism, so your focus should not be on the perm, it’s just an impact turn debate. Good impact module to the K in context of the plan---your explanation of transportation inequality as a result of their focus on economic productivity concretized the story of the K Redo: 2NC on the cap K---you need to say your framework role of ballot first. Do not make that arg that “capitalism will exist inevitably,” that’s an aff arg---instead, say capitalism only exists as it is affirmed and embodied by the lives and actions of individual citizens (the framework arg you were making goes well with this), so the only relevant question is whether or not we should affirm or criticize intellectual extensions of the capitalism/neoliberal economic relationships.

Round 7---Comments by Robel Worku
Aff vs AV Clara-Rebecca

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: I thought the 1ar was pretty good. The block spent an insufficient amount of time on the case, so reallocating your time to deal with the one strategy in the block that the case wouldn’t necessarily answer was good. Buckling down to the permutation and theory on the counterplan was strategically – you weren’t really going to beat them on the racism defense absent a solvency deficit on the counterplan in the 2ac. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 8---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs GR Naveena-Shireen

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally fine. 2) Recommended Drills: Read 10 min or more of cards every day to improve speed and endurance. 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Your explanation of the T violation doesn’t make sense given that the rez requires increased investment not increased infrastructure – this means that they meet T increase and that the number of pre-existing dams doesn’t matter. I don’t think you have an internal link to framers’ intent – why did they intend to exclude dams/require a certain funding level. Consider putting the impact debate in an overview rather than halfway down the line-by-line – it frames the rest of the debate and lets you just do link work on the counterinterpetation. I think you should choose a more limited number of standards to explain in greater depth – this would make it easier for the judge to keep track and also save some time. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Using evidence in the 2NC to strengthen your T arguments is a good approach, but make sure all the cards are applicable and strategic (the new, smaller interpretation of substantial could have hurt you). 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: I think this was the right 2NR choice – any problems were with execution not strategic decisions. On the line-by-line on politics – in your last speech you should try to go beyond extending the 1nr arguments – resolve issues for the judge by grouping each debate and highlighting the specific reasons you win and comparing your args with the affirmative’s. This entails choosing a limited number of 1NR arguments – ideally the ones that are strongest/match up most favorably against the aff arguments – and explaining them more extensively. On the counterplan – the framing of sufficiency vs optimality is good – also talk about how there’s no quantifiable solvency deficit i.e. the aff hasn’t explained how their args implicate your ability to solve any particular advantage or impact. It might also help to move from the more abstract args about solvency to the specifics of this debate – point out that all the states have to succeed in doing is knocking down 4 dams – they don’t have to build anything so it’s not clear what they would screw up. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Implement the changes described above. Additional Comments about the Debate: As a general rule, everyone should make sure they get beyond indicting the other team’s evidence (not that that’s not useful) and make sure they refute the argument made as well – otherwise a better card in the opponent’s next speech could put you in a difficult position.

Round 9---Comments by John Warden
Neg vs AV Jordan-Cole

• Good cross-x answering specific questions about their evidence – setting up econ empirically denied args is always useful • Good to start debate on CP by making a distinction but need to be better at explaining how the mechanism is different from what the plan says – still unclear to me after the speech and cross-x • Did you intend for the DA to be a net benefit to the CP? Needs to be more clear and more time invested • Impact comparison needs to be a little more specific – why is Russia drawn in?

Round 10---Comments by Phil Holsted
Aff vs AV Kevin-Tim

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: faster on the text of cards 2) Recommended Drills: reading backwards 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Read cards in the 1AR and start doing evidence comparison 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: dont go for condo use the case against the K -> no money in the private sector now - do more S deficit work need to do more impact analysis on the DA - cover the new impacts answer the RVI on intrinsicness if you are going to go for theory the framework stuff at the top doesnt really get you anywhre - use that time on the DA instead you need to pick and choose more instead of trying to go for so many arguments on each flow