Debate+Comments---Shaun

Round 1---Comments by Linda Pei
July 11 - Aff vs Andrew & Eric

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You are a good speaker, but towards the end of the speech, you seem to get tired.

2) Recommended Drills: You should work on stamina by doing speed drills for extended periods of time, and work on clarity.

3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Good case coverage and time allocation. Read more offense, particularly add-ons and link turns (though I realize camp evidence limits what you can do). Good job flagging the North Korea impact the top. When you extend your economy impacts on the case flow, you should also point out how they turn the kritik by proving that the alternative to capitalism is massive war. And don’t forget to make CP links to the politics DA arguments.

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: You could have read a few more cards on politics, and make sure to read the other team’s topicality interpretation evidence and indict it.

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Good job going for conditionality to leverage against topicality. But the 2AR was pretty messy on the topicality flow – you need to frame the debate and highlight the key issue, flagging your impacts at the top. You didn’t really articulate any impacts on theory.

6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Flesh out the advocacy skills argument on conditionality, and use this impact to leverage against the topicality standards. On topicality, you should combine your we meet argument, that you build upon pre-existing Amtrak rails, with the reasonability argument. You are also too defensive on topicality – emphasize reasons why their interpretation is bad.

Round 2---Comments by Nathan Bennett
Neg vs Debnil & Madhu

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: you dropped the bottom of the flow and solvency advocate theory on the CP You can save a lot of time in the 2nr by doing less on the politics flow where you are winning (i.e. the uniqueness and link debate) and more time on the CP and case—you need to make sure you extend the sufficiency framing on the CP, but its probably not a huge deal

2) Recommended Drills: More efficiency on ptx—don’t need to reexplain all your uniqueness cards when you are pretty far ahead on these questions Solid work on where you spent time, but you glazed over certain critical parts of the debate

3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: CX: Seems like some of this is a little irrelevant—try to set up arguments for the 1nc more This T business is silly You are loud and sound good generally, but sometimes you get very unclear, especially when transitionig You need to answer the solvency advocate argument on the CP You should try to make your answers to the CX less circular—you beg the question a lot 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good ev comparison on ptx—try to do this on the CP and case as well because that is even more important in terms of econ theory

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: Good decision not to go for T—the rest is above 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: work on time allocation issues mentioned above

**Round 3---Comments by Alex Miles**
Aff vs John & Eric

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Start out 1AC slower Don't try to go too fast - it makes you stutter 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) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: You were too light on Keynes bad in the 1ar. Needed to answer the deficit component and the ridership args on solvency better --- you just extended your ev shallowly w/o reallyany warrants. Good on oil pointing out why their ev didn't apply. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR:

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Sectionalize the stimulus debate more - that will help with organization for the judges flow and for your efficiency. Instead of saying "we solve jobs b/c x" and then later on the flow "we solve jobs b/c y" just be like "we solve jobs - a, b, c" --- grouping the debate in that way really helps for the 1ar - same w/ politics --- impact calc, uq, link turn are the main sections in this one. Don't try to go so fast - if you slow down a little bit and let your mind have more time to come up with cohesive thoughts, you won't stutter and your args will be better.

Round 4---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Neg vs Andrew & Jon

2NC: your debating on the case was very good for the most part – I think you should have extended your competitiveness defense, though. Great analytic args on the oil advantage. I thought you could have dealt with their solvency deficits to the CP a little more directly in the 2NC – against their arguments, you just make a couple analytic indicts of each, but then at the bottom you end up reading a big pile of cards – figure out which ones of those apply and use them more specifically.

2NR: you absolutely need to say that their link turns to politics are captured by the CP Substance on the CP: this was debated a bit too abstractly – you kind of just list your solvency args and don’t grapple with their deficits very directly. Theory: don’t just rely on this mult-actor fiat cheap-shot thing – it’s not a winner for most judges and doesn’t really answer most of their args. Politics: I liked how you used the link to turn the case independently. Overall, I think you didn’t have quite enough time on the DA because of being a little top-heavy on the CP, and spending a bit too much time on theory.

Round 5---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Aff vs Julian & Elliot

clarity—I couldn’t follow the beginning of the 1AC—start a little slower good answer to the mandates question cross-ex question about the disability trade off card is good--that card is terrible--ask about funding streams and budgets in the gov't 1AC needs to have better stage presence--look at judge make sure you're angled as-ean = as-ean **say that that 2005 card just says there are lots of trade blocks--that doesn't mean the US isn't crucially connected to them** absence of US leadership = china rise 1AR always extend perm don't throw flows follow the order of the 2AC must extend transition wars on the K--best offense against hte alt be more indignant about the alt doing something when going for framework must answer the "extinction inev" arg if you're straight turning--need some more robust answer to ethics **util

Round 6---Comments by Phil Holsted
Neg vs Blake & Tyler

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: faster 2) Recommended Drills: 20 min of speaking drills daily 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: cap k - need to answer all their impact turns - those are justifications for their methodology answer their other internal links not just deficit spending answer the warrants in their ev - you read a ton of cards on multiplier effect but why did you read the environment turn without answering their impact turns to cap? 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: give the 1N something to do in prep - yes you have a lot of time and not many args to answer but it looks better and it is always better to have something written out in advance rather than answering it on the fly why did you choose the DA? didnt answer the florida specific args L generates U is not very good - especially if you drop a state specific link turn ->you are way stronger on the U than they are - why would you take the risk of making this argument? never finish early what is the DA to going for the deficit spending bad stuff as a turn? go way deeper on the link analysis 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 8---Comments by Arjun Vellayappan
Aff vs GR Jack-Jon

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed, could be a bit clearer at start 2) Recommended Drills: Pen and emphasis drills for clarity 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Really good job using evidence in your 1AR and comparing old ev to theirs 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Good strategic choices and execution in the 1AR – could have more directly responded to the block’s impact framing and read another U card on politics. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - Choose one perm on cap - More directly answer the block’s impact framing/turns case - More uniqueness evidence on politics and a more robust extension of impact defense

Round 9---Comments by Arjun Vellayappan
Neg vs GR Patrick-Luke

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: No 2) Recommended Drills: Keep doing what you’re doing 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Very nice 2NC. Two small things: (1) Answer PICS a bit better on second CP and (2) Don't say no US-Russia impact - can't go for elections impact as well 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Really nice use of evidence in both the 2NC/2NR but could have benefitted from evidence comparison more in both speeches – like force yourself to indict their authors/warrants more often 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: Good strategic choices and execution overall. Comments given and suggestions below 6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - Get to states to kick it - Better impact calc with more framing - Better on solvency advocate theory arg on the decoupling CP - their best arg in my opinion - Focus more on Iran, less on Russia - they have ZERO defense so you could spend more time explaining interactions and why concession = 100% risk and say no new 2AR responses

Round 10---Comments by Garrett Ablekop
Aff vs GR Emily-Neeral

1AC -Clarity on the text of cards is a bit of an issue – over-annunciation drill and open mouth wider 1AC CX -“Environmental Impact Statement = normal means” in cross-x – not sure you want to say that 1NC CX -Had a good CX. As soon as the timer beeped and you made the decision to extend cross-x beyond three minutes, the cross-x turned into atrociousness – not only should you rarely, if ever, extend the cross-x beyond the time allotted – but – also, the content of cross-x switched from asking good, strategic questions to being focused solely on the text content of a piece of evidence (that’s why asking open-ended questions like “where does you evidence say” only leads to bad cross-examinations) 1AR -Good -Cross-application of coercion to the CP is smart – need to make an argument about why the net benefit should be evaluated in terms of sufficiency, not degree – if the CP is sufficient to cause social injustice, it doesn’t matter if the plan might cause more of it -On elections uniqueness, I would have gone for uniqueness overwhelms alone instead of the double bind – also – appeal to the moment you had in 1AC cross-x; judges love it when debaters reference important cross-x moments in their speeches -Need to be better and more efficient at articulating the reasons why CPs must compete off of the explicit mandates of the plan -Could have used the social justice “add on” read on the bottom of the kritik in the 2AC -Permutation argument you made is exactly the right permutation argument – no reason it needs to be conditioned, if NEPA is already normal means, reform NEPA and do the plan no matter what – in other words – the CP has no “leverage key” or “genuine consultation key” warrant - - BUT – need to be very clear on exactly which 2AC permutation you were extending