Ashwin

Ashwin - you sound great in the 1ac. - try to ask multiple lines of questions in the CX - you focus too much on the cap K. - not sure you need a card on the economy adv in the 1ar. - make your elections arguments on the DA, not the case - be careful with cards in the 1ar - no repetitive ones. good to read them, but arguments are more important. - "Real world" not a good phrasing for conditionality. "everyday decision making" is better. debate is the real world! it's not fake! - extend fewer arguments on the Cap K - more choice. took too long
 * __Round 10 (Tripp)__**

__ **Practice Debate #9 - Neg vs. Chicago Scholars - 07/26/2012- Comments by Tate** __ --Very minor but always give a detailed roadmap of the case flows in the roadmap of the 1NC - just don't say "case" but say the order of the flows "i.e. econ adv, oil adv, solvency". Obviously, you don't need to be as detailed as stating the individual arguments. --I know it is hard to remember everything as a maverick, but you are typically a 1N. You should always remember to have a text to the CP! --Watch your case arguments a bit more: (1) the lab goal stated yesterday was to include an analytical on each case flow???; (2) watch repeating similar arguments - you want a variety of case arguments - no need to read two cards that say no impact to oil shocks; (3) make sure to try to avoid take-outs/defense that also take out your offense (plan does not solve oil shocks). --You probably don't need to read US is the key lynchpin argument for your Oil DA on case. The Aff makes that argument for you. --We forgot our lab goal of making more analytics on the case debate. You were getting some good traction in the CX of the 1AC and zero of those arguments translated on to the flow. Most varsity debaters sprinkle quite a few analytics on the case debate between cards. I stopped Ashwin to add some analytics to the flow. He did a pretty good job with this as the speech went on, but the analytics (i.e. on oil dependence) contradicted an argument he made earlier (either US consumption is key to world consumption/price shocks or it's not). The analytic on the economy advantage was very good. --Overall, you had a really nicely structure to the 1NC. You were clear and very easy to flow. :) --Use all of your time when CXing the 2AC. You announced you only had 30 seconds left and then you sat down. 30 seconds is a lot of CX time left! --I thought you did a nice job answering the perm in the 2NC. You need to go ahead and make the argument that the perm also links to the Elections DA - this is probably more important than saying the perm links to elections. --When extending case arguments in the block, try to go somewhat in 1NC order. When you started on the flow, the first argument you extended was the last argument on the flow in the 1NC. We actually now seem to be working bottom up...we are now arguing the Saudi argument which is the next to last argument. You need a brief overview on the Saudi argument and you need to directly clash with the Aff arguments. You need to extend 1NC cards by cite. Treat extending this impact turn as if you were extending a DA. --Where is this China argument coming from? Which 1NC argument is this? --We just extended the Oil flow with zero reference to any 2AC arguments. At this point, you need to do more than just explaining your argument. You need to engage the 2AC on the line by line -_REDO: I would like to see you redo the case portion of the 2NC - (1) Go in 1NC order...you are all over the flow; (2) Anchor/ground this CHina argument...which argument from the 1NC is this? (3) Argue the 2AC arguments directly against the Saudi turn and elsewhere on the flow. --Good division of the block. --I thought your timeframe discussion on the Elections DA was very good - a bit wordy, but you were making some smart arguments. --I may have missed it since I was typing the above comments, but did we transfer some of the CX arguments we made about the irrelevancy of 2AC 1 on Elections to the flow? Remember, the thoughts of GOP lawmakers has zero to do with your link. --Even though the CP is conditional, you need to kick out of it in the 2NR. --I am glad we had an overview in the 2NR but it was too much based on the line-by-line. We should not be talking about individual uniqueness arguments and particular uniqueness cards in our overview. You need to talk about why you win the round - weigh the Aff vs. the DA.

__ **Practice Debate #8 - Aff vs. Tiffany/Abby - 07/25/2012 - Comments by Peyton** __ 1AC - Must use up all your time – you had 2:00 leftover 2AC - Shouldn’t start with top speed card – hard to flow and makes line by line harder to follow - Don’t necessarily need new cards on each case argument – At the very least you should certainly extend and explain your 1ac cards first - Make more smart/analytic args against the K – not all cards, also discussions of the link/Alt in terms of not solving your specific case - Spent too much time on the K - Are you marking cards during the round? - Your politics answers overlapped a lot with the spending disad - Theory Args please - As a mav – you should definitely use cx time for prep sometimes 1AR - Should put the overview on the spending disad and still fight the uniqueness/link battle since you made arguments about both of them - Order should be CP after the case debate unless some strange ext - Not just new cards – should extend and explain 2ac arguments - More efficient case extension (might not need new cards) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- If get to disad with so little time, gotta choose which arg and not extend everything <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">2AR <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Impact overview should be on one flow and a little more organized – you reference hege/econ advantage as though you’re going to the line by line – instead you should be doing just the impact comparison <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- You should still go to the spending disad even if you’re not extending specific 2ac cards – maybe do the impact framing there <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- You could’ve extended turns from the politics flow – conceded NU/Link turn and she didn’t explicitly kick out of it <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Don’t need to reference “judge” <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Need to use up all your time (you have 1:30 left)

__ **Practice Debate #6 - Neg vs. Noah/Avi - 07/23/2012 - Comments by Zane** __ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">--asking good questions---can you quantify the brink for the collapse of the airline industry/ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">--not so good question---where do all your authors get your funding from? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">--1NC---good speed, pretty good clarity. There is some white noise that he could eliminate to increase clarity. Sounds like he is slurring on text of cards a little bit, still able to understand pretty much every word, but could be crisper. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">--2NC---good case debating, need to fill up whole speech (ended with a minute left), talk more about their 1AC evidence, good way to point out bad 2AC ev, but need to answer 1AC warrants even if they don't re-extend them in the 2AC. Thorough case debating must include a discussion of the 1AC. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">--Be a little less flippant in CX. -- <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">1NR---needed more impact calculus about the original scenario. Read new impacts but didn't talk about Iran strikes. Also didn't talk about turns case or any impact filters (Timeframe would have been the best one in this situation). ended up doing impact calc in **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">2nr **<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">.Also needed to talk about their evidence more, did a good job putting ink/ev next to every 2ac arg, but not much specific analysis. -- <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">CX in general <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">"Where in the card is that warrant"---usually a time-waster unless it's a card you want to focus cross-x on. The other team always burns at least 5 seconds looking for the card.

__ **Practice Debate #5** __

__ **Practice Debate #3 - Aff vs. Ruth/Ari -07/16/2012 - Comments by Tate** __ --We are going a bit faster than we should. When we are delivering 1ACs, you don't need to push yourself at 110%. Trust me on this - judges want clear, pleasant 1ACs with a nice rhythm. You sound taxed 30 seconds into it. Slow it down to about 80% speed and you will see your speaker points increase - I promise. A debater that goes faster than they really should really does not get much more in. --Your 1AC was SO much better when I slowed you down. You probably can still up your speed a tad from what you delivered today and still have a pleasant rhythm and are clear. Seriously, I would have given you .3 to .5 speaker points higher for the second 1AC reading. :) It is not that I could not flow the first 1AC...it was just that you were speaking at an uncomfortable rhythm. --You really should use all of your CX time (CXing the 1NC). If you watch high-level varsity debates, every second is used with thoughtful questions. It actually makes you sound less experienced to end CX early.  --It is really good to read new cards in the 2AC when extending case but utilize your 1AC cards more. That should have been the first words out of your mouth to start the 2AC then the tag of a new card.  --We want to make your analyticals more structured - this will help with 1AR as well. You should have a quick tag/label for your analyticals and then limit your explanation to 2-3 sentences. Our analyticals were lengthy and  --You will not win very many debates on exploding limits good. You need to go back to argue predictability vs. limits.  --You can only read cards from the camp...zero cards that are not published to the entire camp. It is upsetting this occurred...not because it was a big deal but it just seems like we have not been plugged in to lab the past few days. This has been stated in lab a lot. --Make sure to transition between positions - signpost that you are going to elections. --I know you are not typically a 2AC, but when you are answering off-case positions you don't need to signpost off the individual cards on a DA. You just say "Now Elections" and then number your arguments. You don't need to announce that you are now answering their link, etc. Your job in the 2AC is to answer the DA story. --Good variety of arguments to answer the Elections DA. --Always perm the CP! --Avoid asking CX questions that stem around "Did you answer...?" Trust your flows. I know you are not typically a 2A, but highlighting what the 2N did not answer means that the 1NR can now answer it! You don't want to give them that ability. --Again, we only used about 1 minute of our CX time...if you want to look like a more experienced debater, you want to use all of your CX time. I know it is hard when you are maverick, but try to make that a goal next time. Think about CX questions you can ask even before the debate once you know what the Aff discloses. --It is fine that we are extending the state budget DA at the top of the CP but we need to structure this a bit more - tell me which 2AC cards you are extending...either by number or cite. --I want you to extend a solvency deficit as well - it is fine to extend the budget module but that is distinct from the solvency question. --Goals for 1AR Redo: (1) Structure your speech more based on specific 2AC extensions; (2) I want you to explain the state budgets DA more - what is the impact? link? cites of cards? You answered that it was dropped...but you need to do more to *win* the argument; (3) I want the 1AR redo to be carded - read 1-2 more pieces of evidence; (4) Extend a solvency deficit on the CP. --Good to extend that Obama is spending money now. Tell me which 2AC argument to extend. --Avoid being "snarky" - don't say "thank you for not answering" or "you didn't do this". Just merely say "this was dropped". --For the 2AR, you don't need to state that you win the case/link turn. For judges that flow, that is the given. --For this Aff, you need to talk about why every TI plan involves federal government paying private contractors. There really is not a bright line between that and what your Aff does with a PPP.

__ **Rebuttal Redo from PD #1 - 07/14/2012 - Comments by Tara** __ --Ashwin redid a 1NR that he gave in a practice debate in front of an RA. The 1NR was originally the cap K and case. --It is good to alter the 1NR in a redo to even fix structural concerns, such as making the decision not to go for case arguments that would not gain you traction in the end. --Overall, I am SO glad that you had an overview. This is important for any off-case argument in the block, but especially important when extending the K. I would really like this to be a bit more structured. Judges tend to process overviews more if there is some type of structure (numbering key arguments, labeling sections, etc). --I thought our answers to the permutation were good, but I think I would like more. Most permutations against the K are either intrinsic (they add something that does not exist in the plan or alternative) or severence (they sever part of the plan...especially true if the alternative is reject X). I would like for you to add a theory argument next time if the permutation is one of these. --Also on the permutation, you want to make a quick line about why any residual link of the Aff to the K means the permutation is not net-beneficial. At its foundation, the permutation is a test of the link of the K. Good K debaters will argue that any risk of the link means the permutation is not the best option. --Speaking comments: You are clear, fast, and have good presence. I would want you to move the chair so you are not directly speaking into your laptop. --Followed the goals that Nate set out well - did not spend too much time on case in the redo, answered the "cede the political" argument.

__ **Practice Debate #2 - 07/13/2012 - Aff vs. Ruth - Comments by Linda** __
 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">1A 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;">You have good volume, speed, and clarity. However, you need to work on differentiating the tagline from the card, and vice versa. Make sure to emphasize taglines more.


 * <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;">Keep doing speed drills, and clarity drills, such as the pen drill and the over-enunciation drill.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You should read more cards in the 1AR on the kritik to support the arguments you want to go for – I think you should definitely read the Gibson-Graham card.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- During the 2AC, you should not be standing up next to your partner and reading over their shoulder. This is a waste of time. Instead, you should use this time to read through the 1NC and start preparing blocks to extend the arguments your partner is making, and against arguments you think your opponent will go for.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- Also, even though the 1AR is one of the hardest speeches in debate, you should not use up all of your team’s preparation time. The 2AR is incredibly important as well and you should always save at least a couple minutes for it.


 * <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;">- Make your rebuttal much more organized

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- Put framework on top and make sure to adequately answer the epistemology is a prior question argument – you need to answer this argument in order to weigh your case.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- Flag case impacts and explain how they outweigh and turn the kritik.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- Both teams really, really, REALLY need to work on flowing. This will prevent you from dropping major arguments on the flow, and help you organize your roadmap. Your roadmap needs to be “x flow, y flow, and z flow,” otherwise it’s impossible for the judge to follow your arguments. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">- Debaters from both teams have the problem of speaking into their computer screen – you all should slightly move your computer away from you, and make sure not to position it right between you and your judge.
 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">General comments __**

__ **Practice Debate #1 - 07/11/2012 - Neg vs. Michael/Ruth - Comments by Nate** __ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Let your partner give the speech, don’t just tell him what to do <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Order: Do the offcase before the case, because that’s your offense in this debate. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You don’t need to give the specific names of the offcase, just the number off. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Work on paperless issues—the 1nc should be ready to go before the 1ac is over. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Start off a little slower, but nice speed! <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Don’t need to say 3…2…1…go \ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Make sure to say when you’re switching flows <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In cx, you sort of make an arg as to why regardless of Obama, iran will strikes <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You shouldn’t give him your computer, because you need to be prepping <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2) Recommended Drills: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Try to work on clarity, but you are really fast! Make do over-enunciation or speak backwards. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Good job with putting the cards where they needed to be for the case during the 1nc <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">CX: Don’t act so frustrated, it comes off as a little rude <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This CX is also sort of useless-set up your arguments instead of these questions that you aren’t really integrating <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Work on your 1nr, don’t hover over your partner <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You need to go more line by line and spend time more evenly instead of just the perm <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Answer their cede the political arg (McClean) Try to get to the case and the bottom of the cap flow—you were a little too top heavy and stole

---Students were asked to create a five minute Negative block speech to extend an Obama Good Elections DA. Students were given the 1NC shell and a file of potential cards they could use for their extensions. They used their own 2ACs from the night before as the 2AC to answer when they gave the extension speech. --Put impact calculus at the top (not sure if they were supposed to or not for the purposes of this speech) --Adjust your body so I can see your face when you speak – just try to move the computer a little off to the side if you have to use a stand that’s a little too tall --Number or letter your arguments – just add a little more structure to how you answer it argument instead of a barrage of cards. Also makes it easier to differentiate between the args that you’re making --Sound pretty good – very clear --Good signposting --In general, be very careful about reading new impacts to a disad in the block – especially something as easily impact turned as proliferation.
 * __Elections DA Negative Block Speech - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Robel__ **

--Very, very good. Really fantastic speed and clarity. You attacked all parts of the disad which is great and gives you a lot of options in the 1AR. A very well-given and organized speech. --Good job reading both the "plan solves econ" and the "econ key to election" cards! --You shouldn't read the alt cause- China card because the 1AC solvency for warming is also (presumably) only in the US. Similarly, you also shouldn't read the "warming isn't anthropogenic" card because that contradicts the 1AC as well. Focus on attacking the negative's ability to solve warming. Also, point out that the plan solves warming as well. --Good job with analytics! They're so so so good to have in speeches.
 * __Elections DA 2AC Speech - Day 1 - 7/9 - Abe__ **