Debate+Comments---Andrew

Round 1---Comments by Linda Pei
July 11 - Neg vs Julian & Shaun

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speaking voice, but a little bit nasally.

2) Recommended Drills: Work on taking deeper breaths and breathing through your nose when speaking.

3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Since the 1NR essentially has 13 minutes of prep time, you should incorporate much more evidence comparison and many more evidence indicts in your speech.

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: I think 5 minutes of the capitalism kritik could have been a very viable option for the 1NR, because you were clearly ahead on the states counterplan, which solves all of case, so instead of spending all of the 1NR on case, the time would have better been spent elsewhere.

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: When going for case, make sure to emphasize key arguments, such as the investor freakout turn. Spend more time on your offense and develop your warrants in a more in-depth manner.

Round 2---Comments by Robel Worku
Aff vs Blake & Tyler

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: sounded pretty good 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: I thought time allocation was pretty good in the 2ac. Was slightly disappointed by the 2ac on the elections disad though – Eric made some headway into their impact arguments in cross-x of the 1ncbut those args never made it to the 2ac. Overall pretty good. Consider using imbedded clash on the case debate just for efficiency purposes. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: I thought it was the right decision to go for the permutation in the 2ar vs the counterplan – but I do think that if that is how you’re planning on winning the debate, it shouldn’t seem like an afterthought at the bottom of the 2ar. Put it at the top of the counterplan, and sit on it for a while. I thought the explanation of it was fine, but it just seemed like that didn’t look like strategy you had wanted to go for. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: re-give the 2AR with the permutation at the top. Also remember to do some comparative impact work somewhere in the speech next time around.

Round 3---Comments by Layne Kirshon
-very clear - good work -i like that you started w/ election and put ASPEC lower - easier to flow -be careful about consistency bw cap K and case args - your AT: econ were all free market K's of keynesianism....the cap alt definitely causes lots of deadweight loss if those args are true #lol -consider impact turning growth...esp w/an oil impact. or at least read a ton of no impact to econ cards which i think is pretty easy to win given the recent crisis and then say that's UQ for your cap alt AND means you link turn oil dependence. -in 1nr see last point for the 1a - you've lowered the threshold far too much for impact, such that putin is an amazing thumper - you also basically dropped this besides saying START empirically denies it, but putin was only the PM when START passed... -good impact calc, but probs overdid it - they don't have much game on the impact, but they have good args on the i/l to the impact, so focus on those more -START arg at the bottom - get to it w/more time, but u don't need much besides "this is uq for us - means romney will blast us"

Round 4---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs Abla & Shaun

2AC order was good – definitely put the K on the bottom in a debate like this. Embedded clash on the case in the 2AC was great.

2AR: weird balance between substance and theory – maybe at least try to make it a VI – if you’re going to extend substance, have to impact solvency deficits better. Press harder on “they don’t have a theory of ambit” Could be a little better on answering their AT: diversionary theory Answers to shocks inev weren’t quite right

**Round 5 - Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: No 2) Recommended Drills: No 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Great comparison --- really solid 1nr on politics - basically no errors 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Need a tiny bit less time on the overview b/c you didn't handle their impact D about Putin dooming relations inevitably very well- otherwise great 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: See above

Round 6---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs Joel & Mark

Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: good speed, could be more organized. 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: made pretty good arguments and strategic choices, but needed more overall organization and depth. The econ advantage should have been much more high tech on Keynesianism good (redid the 2AC on this, your warrants were way more complex and well-explained---AND, you spent just as much time as you did during the actual speech, but made at least 2x the arguments) 2AR made the right choices on which impacts to go for/what impact frames to use. Should have kicked oil and spent the majority of your time on econ/beating the DA. Need more meta comparisons---the reduced risk of DA with faster timeframe versus aff with bigger impact but longer term, for example (discussed in prepping for redo).

Could have given a better 2AR from the perspective of narrative, try and use fewer buzzwords and talk about the aff in the language of the literature. It’s a high standard to meet, but it will increase the quality of your substance and sound a lot better.

Round 7---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs GR Alex-Sunny

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed and clarity – try to reduce double breathing. 2) Recommended Drills: Read 10 min or more of cards every day to improve speed and endurance. 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good decision to use the Silver card for uniqueness – take more advantage of his quals in the 1NR. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: You could improve this “markets solve” argument by giving a specific example of how they self-correct – for example, unemployment could drive down wages which would allow more hiring. Consider reading the Silver prodict and/or Rasmussen indict to strengthen your credibility on uniqueness. Your new link card is a thumper – the part you read says Obama is already pushing an infrastructure bank. You should make a “prefer issue-specific uniqueness” argument on the aff’s link uniqueness args. You should take the defense at the bottom more seriously – leave more time for the last two arguments and make sure you have strong answers. As it is you only have limited answers to the impact defense, and no real answer to “gridlock kills CTBT.” 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Implement the suggestions described above, especially by re-allocating some time from uniqueness and link to the defense on elections.

Round 9---Comments by Garrett Abelkop
Neg vs AV Mike-Sarthak 1NC -Sounded good. Had some ethos – quick, clear, weren’t mumbling. 1NC CX -Speak up a little bit. Force yourself to be a tiny bit louder. 1NR

-Good

-Be careful with some uniqueness warrants on politics – want uniqueness warrants to be factors that the link would change – “swing state voters”

-Be careful with reading the Iran scenario – in this debate its not necessary and could get you into a lot of trouble if the 1AR decided to answer T and then read 3:30 of Iran Strikes good. Gives them a strategic out and the benefit to the Neg of having the extra impact isn’t all that much

-Do a better job of isolating the impact to your limits and ground arguments on T substantial – illustrative examples of the ridiculous things that they would be allowed to get away with.

-A stronger connection on the fact that they have no counter interpretation.

Round 10---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs GR Jack-Jon

2AC needs to start out slower. difficult to adjust to your speaking style immediately. The first 5-10 seconds should transition from slow to fast naturally. You need to think from the perspective of the 2AR before you make your decisions for the 2AC. What are all the possible 2NRs, what is the likely 2NR, what is the most threatening 2NR? These are all the questions that you need to be thinking about. In this case, the interactions between their keynes bad arguments and the elections DA could have been a place where you take advantage of some interaction. IE---if you make all of your answers to the Obama DA about the economy, then winning the Keynes debate also wins you the election debate because an economic boost would swing it to obama, or, guarantees an obama victory. You don't have to definitively win that Obama or Romney is winning the election right now to straight turn it, you need to win that it is impossible for Obama to win if there is a double dip/without increased jobs or econ performance. Without the aff there is no chance Obama can win with the coming double dip, which means it's try or die for the link turn (or something along these lines).

After this, you needed to work harder on using/extending specific warrants and having depth of explanation to respond to a pretty extensive 1NC on case. 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. Also, you need to be able to do the historical analysis to prove your arguments---wikipedia is a great tool (at least to give you topics to pursue articles about). Talk about the New Deal in your Keynes good 2AR. For 2AR Against the K, I am going to copy you on the advice I gave jon about 1ARs on the K. the 2AR format is similar, but requires more depth at each level. More comparisons, more criticisms of their particular evidence, and, mot importantly, MORE HISTORY. Do reading on anticapitalist revolutions, be able to narrate your no alt solvency/alt-violence arguments to the sound of history. Mao and Stalin/the Soviet Bloc in general. Concretize your DAs to the alt. likewise, talk about your impact arguments historically, economic strife allowed economic nationalism as a rallying point for Hitler (for the classic example). Talk about food prices during the great depression and poverty rates. Tell a story.