Debate+Comments---Tyler

Round 1---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Aff vs Debnil & Madhu

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 1AC is clear but too loud/high-pitched 2) Recommended Drills: Practice reading 1AC close to normal speaking voice – focus on controlling your volume 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Don’t read unnecessary 1AR cards – you have a bunch of “stimulus good” cards to extend already. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Far too much time spent on case, which made it difficult to cover the DA and K – you should work on embedding clash and grouping case arguments especially on the economy advantage – try to find 1 or 2 framing arguments that answer a lot of their args. Go for the florida link turn – if Florida is decisive and you let Obama win it, then you solve the disad even if it’s not a unique link turn. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Spend 2 minutes maximum on case, and use the extra time to answer framework and further develop your cap good arguments

Round 2---Comments by Robel Worku
Neg vs Andrew & Eric

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: way too loud. Also work on getting faster 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: felt like you read a lot of cards that were unnecessary at the expense of extending arguments that were actually in the 1nc on the case debate. The case debate needed to be much more structured and explained – it felt more like a barrage of cards and I wasn’t sure what to do with them on my flow. Also, you NEED an overview on the elections disad. It’s an absolute must. Just at least 30 seconds explaining why your impact outweighs theirs for whatever reason. Go in the order of the 2ac on the disad. Try to more explicitly reference the 2ac argument that you are answering. Also allocated your time better in the 2nc – you ended dropping the bottom 3 or 4 arguments on the elections disad – I think more efficiency on the case debate should help you out with that. Also, get faster. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: lot of case cards that were unnecessary. More evidence comparison would’ve been good on the elections disad. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: I think you had to go for the counterplan in this debate, so it was the correct 2nr decision. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: I would suggest re-giving the 2nc according to the comments above.

**Round 4---Comments by Alex Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You are trying way too hard to go fast --- it's making you slower - you were faster conversational speed on that card after the round! You should be speaking relaxed and not all tense/strained Start way slower 2) Recommended Drills: Pen drill for 5 minutes going as fast as you can while being really clear. Then start reading conversational speed and slowly slow up till you're going at a smooth rate that's fast, but you shouldn't be huffing/puffing/breathing crazy/etc. Basically be speaking normally but an accelerated rate 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: You need to make a way more concerted effort to go line by line and answer their args. A good blue print to have is 3-1 --- for every arg the 2ac makes, the block should have 3 warranted args in response---you can't just read cards on the CP w/o answering the aff's specific deficits or they will just out - tech you. Try creating like a solvency overview where you read the 2 cards you want, but then you have to address the line by line and answer the aff's args in order. This block was probably too big - you hardly read any cards on politics (the 2ac may have outcarded you) and didn't have time to really do impact calc - maybe if the 2nc was just politics and the 1nr the cp, instead of ptx/cp and K, you would have more time to go in depth on a lot of the aff's args --- esp against a really fast 2a 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Not enough comparative analysis -- relying on reading cards a little too much. I would recommend writing some blocks to key aff args for your generics to get some of the leg work out of the way before the debate 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: Didn't think you should've gone for the K --- not enough analysis was done in the 1nr and the 1ar made a lot of args on it relative to politics 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Have a more coherent story on the K Overview Impact Calc

Round 5---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs Olivia & Kaycee

1AC needs to start out significantly slower, difficult to adjust to your speaking style immediately. The first 5-10 seconds should transition from slow to fast naturally. When answering cross-ex questions about the 1AC, you should be able to demonstrate an even more encyclopedic knowledge of your evidence, all the warrants and authors associated with them. I would recommend reading through the 1AC and writing/typing out all the warrants and possible applications of particular warrants to neg arguments with your partner. You both brain storm ideas for using different 1AC cards in different ways and develop a common understanding of the aff. 1AR needs to be more picky. make some choices and limit the arguments you go for. On case, you probably need to consider kicking an advantage to make up some time. Depth of explanation and warrant diversity are the gold standard (both using a lot of warrants, but also impacting your arguments better and adding comparison). Take Keynes as an example---top level debating goes back through the warrants from the evidence, next level analysis requires historical examples or explanation of the economics behind keynesianism/models that prove it, the next level is explaining why history or economic modeling should be preferred to ideological austerity (or whatever args you wanna make against their keynes bad args). You can only get that level of depth by making strategic choices about which args to extend, which requires vision of where the 2AR wants the debate to go---this requires extensive discussion of the aff and its answers to various position, and more importantly, discussion between the partners in the actual debate.

Round 6---Comments by Phil Holsted
Aff vs Shaun & Abla

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: breathing pauses dont slow down so much on the tags dont take so much time to transition between advs cut out the word "contention" 2) Recommended Drills: reading backwards and pen drills 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: You need to do evidence comparison and read some cards in the 1ar on places where the 2ac was shallow 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: dont talk about their args so much be quicker and more efficient kick an adv dont keep bringing up the scenario you dropped dont repeat yourself on args like 2.8 multiplier spend more time on cap cant answer it like the normal cap K - perm not a good option make U args on case need to answer the methodology first / judge as an academic args 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 7---Comments by Nathan Bennett
Aff vs GR Morgan-Brian

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: you need to be a lot clearer/speak at your normal voice—I think you are straining yourself unnecessarily CX: instead of just clarifying how the arguments interact, contest it more --don’t ask them to show lines in the card, read it for them if you think its bad --you need to prepare for CX—it seems like you sorta randomly got up there and asked questions

2) Recommended Drills: Practice easing into your normal voice by getting slightly faster as you continue

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: --you have to be doing a lot more evidence comparison, especially on the politics debate and the cp debate --you do a good job working with your own evidence, but are not as good at comparing it to the aff’s

--flush out the warrants in THEIR uniqueness evidence to prove the uniqueness overwhelms the link claim --need to impact the solvency defecit to the cp

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: --shouldve gone for uniqueness o/w the link—you hinted that you were going to do this and then never did --need to be a lot faster/more efficient so that you can make the 2nr hard --the benefit for the 1ar of a small block for the aff is that you can crush them on a few key arguments but that means that you have to read a lot of cards/make a lot arguments to do this

Round 8---Comments by Phil Holsted
Neg vs GR Emily-Neeral

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: need to be faster and more technical 2) Recommended Drills: 20 min of speaking drills a day 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: dont stumble at the beginning give more explanation of your 1NC ev need to answer all of their args give warrants for your uniqueness on the DA and make evidence and author comparisons impact work on the top of the DA - access their impacts use the house - you dont have offense on conditionality get a better flow of the 2ac -> more technical line-by-line make more efficient severence theory 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: There needs to be way more of this – you need to give reasons why your authors are more qualified and why the warrants in your evidence are better / assume the warrants in their ev 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: make some theory args other than reject arg not team dont repeat yourself on the polls arg dont jump around - stick to the line by line so you dont drop things impact comparison answer their args dont just extend the tagline of yours

Round 9---July 27th---Comments by Linda Pei
Aff vs GR Anjay-Patrick

__1A Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Work on speed and clarity.

2) Recommended Drills: You should do over-enunciation drills and speed drills.

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * 1AC set-up
 * I think you can consolidate your trade advantage and your economy advantage – it will make things easier and reduce a flow you have to go to in time-pressured speeches like the 2AC and the 1AR.
 * Politics DA
 * Read more politics cards in the 1AR on the uniqueness debate

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR:
 * Case debate
 * Make sure to extend your impacts!
 * When you extend your economy impacts, you can also point out how this proves transition away from capitalism will be violent and lead to war.
 * Also, make sure to isolate your internal links, specifically on the hegemony advantage, where they have conceded your highway internal link.
 * Efficiency
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Solvency – you are really wordy on solvency.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Capitalism kritik – on framework, you need to narrow down your arguments and eliminate repetitiveness.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States CP
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Time allocation – get to the States CP with more time
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Warrant explanation – you need to explain why the federal government is key
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States can’t solve the trade advantage – Commerce Clause only allows the government to deal with interstate commerce.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States can’t solve the hegemony advantage – we need interoperable and standardized military infrastructure – we can’t risk the states doing something different.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Double solvency
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation shields the link
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The counterplan links to politics (or it doesn’t link, and doesn’t solve your link turns)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More offensive arguments – most of your arguments are solvency deficits that say the counterplan can’t solve “as well” – you need to emphasize arguments such as your “state politics warfare” arguments that prove that the counterplan can’t solve //at all// and could actually make things worse.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Politics DA
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Time allocation – you also need to get to the politics DA with more time
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More analysis and evidence comparison on the uniqueness and link debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">“Uniqueness determines the direction of the link” – if you control uniqueness, and you win that Obama will lose now, there is only a risk that you improve his chances

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

Round 10---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> Neg vs GR Morgan-Brian <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> cross-ex—try to ask more targeted questions instead of just asking for the reexplanation of arguments • Have a quick overview on T in the 2NC that explains your impact arguments o Case lists, ground lost, topical versions of the aff, etc. o Need an answer to reasonability o Think about T like a disad • Be better at recognizing where you need to read cards—for example, the only real answer in the 2AC to the ethanol d/a is “no link”—and instead of reading link cards you read an internal link card about ethanol raising food prices— o Another example: You read another natives/poverty impact card when that’s not a contested impact in the 2AC.. • You read a (long) intrinsicness block without explaining how the perm is intrinsic o Permutations are intrinsic when they add something that’s not in the plan or the counter plan—“do both” is not that • I think you should go for less pages in the 2NC • 2NR—should say the perm links to the NB o the perm is not intrinsic o describe how the CP somehow leads the damns to be destroyed—otherwise it doesn’t solve the case • do impact calc on natives—also describe how the perm doesn’t solve it—otherwise it’s an internal nb that’s not a d/a to the aff • still need an impact framing argument on the K <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">