Debate+Comments---John

Round 2 - Miles
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Amazingly clear 2) Recommended Drills: None 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: I thought your 1ar on politics was the best part, but you were weaker on the K and the CP. You need to sectionalize the CP debate a little bit more into like 1) investment 2) coordination 3) stimulus - that way you've frontloaded your args and the judge has essentially "tags" for each of them Need to be better about answering some of the link args they made on the K - can't just say "china is already a threat" - need to explain what makes them threatening/your impact true --- building bluewater navy, aggression in the SCS, etc. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Good arg choice on ptx --- did good comparison of UQ args / read appropriate ev Don't extend the perm on the K - didn't spend enough time on it to make it credible Attack the alt more --- even if all their links are true, nebulous rejection can't solve them / empirics prove it's worse Maybe do impact calc on the K or Ptx and not the case since the block started it there 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: More time on the K answering the link args Sectionalize your args on the CP Better warrants about why cap solves the enviro

**Round 3---Comments by Alex Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: None 2) Recommended Drills: None 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good job on politics --- really good at comparing the uq debate and the link debate. Need to indict their impact D a little more - I know there's not really ev to answer it in the file, but you still have to try to explain why Iran is still aggressive, strikes change their calculations, etc. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: A tiny bit to top heavy 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Spend more time answering that impact D arg and less time on the overview Otherwise, great

Round 4---Comments by Alex Miles
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You were clear on the case but I had a little trouble flowing it -- slow down 2) Recommended Drills:

3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Front load your arguments on the case w/ a "header" so it makes it more clear which arguments you're answering. You don't need to say "next they say x" but you do need to label clearly "stimulus solves" or stuff like that Otherwise great time allocation in the 2ac---made the block hard by reading theory, add on, and lots of cards everywhere

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Not enough comparison in the 2ar b/w your impacts and there's - you mainly banked on heg outweighing and turning it, but you didn't really give enough credit to their impact args / shape your args in response to them You're letting them get away with too broad of sweeping root cause claims that are in no way connected to how they've explained the alt in this debate --- have to be better on cap solves the environment --- they just make masking links about factories but you need to answer them better b/c they are root cause / solvency takeouts

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Said cap was inevitable 10 times instead of actually indicting the alt - instead of repeating that multiple times throughout the flow, just have a section of the 2ar where you do your "alt fails" analysis and say how cap is inev there, but you really shouldn't say that more than once

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Efficiency Better on cap solves enviro --- need args about why the alt is worse for it too

Round 5---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs Zach & Elsa

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed – you could improve clarity by changing your tone more on tags to distinguish them. 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: If cap is one of your main 2nr options, you might consider reading more cards in the shell to raise the burden for the 2AC responding/avoid new 1AR answers. The 1AC reads link uniqueness for your elections DA and spending turn – you should explicitly concede it on one of those flows. The war impact to Russia relations is sort of dumb – you might consider looking for a different one. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Emphasize the dropped environment impact rather than reading additional impacts like value to life – given limited 2AC coverage, one of your goals should be to avoid justifying new 1AR responses. You should anticipate a McLean style argument in the 1AR and get ahead here with whatever Kappeler-style stuff you have for this K. Technical execution was generally good although there weren’t a ton of args to answer. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Implement the changes described above.

Round 6---Comments by Linda Pei
__2A Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You are a great speaker, but work on endurance – you lose speed and clarity towards the end of your speech.

2) Recommended Drills: Do speed drills for an extended period of time.

3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments:
 * Good coverage and offense in the 2AC.

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * You should read one or two more cards on the development debate.
 * Great add-ons

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR:
 * Trade module – this was never really answered by the negative – even if you don’t spend much time on the trade module in the 2AR, you can use it as sort of a tiebreaker, and another reason why economic collapse removes barriers to war, and thus makes war more likely.
 * Spend more time explaining your impact turns
 * Why is the economy good for the environment?
 * People will only prioritize the environment after the economy is taken care of. You could even use your politics cards to prove this – Obama’s platform of the economy as his main issue proves that people want the economy to be taken care of first.
 * The profit incentive motivates low waste, which is good for business but also good for the environment.
 * Why is innovation good for the environment?
 * You need to identify specific examples of how technology has solved scarcity – i.e. agriculture, etc… Explain your “biotechnology” and “nanotechnology” examples better.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Hegemony advantage – it was a good strategic option to go for hegemony in the 2AR. You should also point out that the affirmative never claims to solve for the //global// economy, only the US economy. So your response to the de-development argument is that collapse now still causes the hegemony impacts and war, while failing to solve for the global economy collapse and global mindset shift, gutting solvency.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Answer this double bind argument – the negative argues that people either won’t invest in technology, or this investment will create a bubble. You have an easy way to answer it by pointing out that the federal government implementation of the plan will ensure private investment and reassurance, and also avoids a bubble because the government can regulate the industry.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Give your re-do with the above suggestions.

Round 7---Comments by Arjun Vellayappan
Neg vs GR Jack-Jon

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Very fast and clear 2) Recommended Drills: Keep doing what you’re doing 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Great 1NR but could have used even more evidence comparison and indicting their 2AC cards rather than just reading your own ev. Overall really good 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Good execution and choice – should have spent a bit more time on the Putin argument 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - A little less time on the link debate and more time on the last 4 args on the flow - More embedded clash on politics would be cool

Round 8---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs AV Kevin-Tim

2AC: Order – I would definitely not put politics last in the order, nor would I put the K first after the case – I’d switch that for sure. The case – very good – you were really efficient, read cards where you needed to, answered everything sufficiently and perfectly in order – great section of the speech. States CP – maybe a little light on the substantive solvency deficits – and you should definitely start impacting the 1AC preempts to states by connecting them to your advantages. Too much time on the cap K – at least some of your answers were additional growth impacts, but even that could have been cut down a bit. CX of 2AC – very good – one of the things I really like about your answers to CX questions is that you often dispute the premise of the question – like the question about the plan taking a long time to solve, the deficit link to politics, etc.

2AR: General – you were great at explaining/extending your own arguments, but you needed to be a little more reactive to what the neg had said and what the flaws in the 2NR were. CP – you spent a lot more time than necessary on substantive solvency deficits – they barely extended the CP and said that I should kick it for them, so just extending that the perm solves the net-benefit is probably enough to get the CP out of the debate – your solvency deficits are redundant if the CP goes away in the first place, so you could definitely cut them for more time. Elections – the 2NR didn’t get to uniqueness! As of the 2NR, there is no chance that Obama wins the election now – and yet you didn’t extend your uniqueness args! That would have been a free and easy complete reduction in the risk of the DA. Your answers to their impact calc were good – it was good to use their “timeframe first” frame against them and I really liked the depth of your impact explanation – but you could have taken a much easier route to seriously reduce the risk of the disad.

Round 9---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs GR Emily-Neeral

• 1NC: o great speaking voice—very loud and crisp and fast  practice punching words—you’re already good at this during the tags, maybe try in the cards more because the text gets lost a bit o a bit simplistic in your explanation of the K—“framing infrastructure through competitiveness is bad”—“bad” is not an impact—explain your terminal impact instead of that word • 1NR o bostrom 1% risk card is already read  I’m not sure how I feel about reading Russia war extinction args—basically concedes that nuclear war can lead to extinction (which is not an arg made well in the 2AC) and can cut against your environment arguments on d-dev  Sometimes when you’re reading analytics I can’t flow you—this was true for your uniqueness block—I heard the first part of every subpoint (a) momentum b) electoral college) but none of the warrants o Get to the impact defense faster—always a weak part of 1NRs—eliminate args like “putin is just one dude”—because he’s the president of a pretty autocratic “democracy” who has a lot of power especially in foreign policy o Also the scenario for Russian conflict was pretty vague—accidents? First strike?—if you make it accidents, then you can still jive with your d-dev arguments about “no transition wars” because states don’t want to fight each other or don’t have the resources o Just a line to add to the link debate—“even if the public likes transportation it’s SPUN as deficit spending”—you essentially do this  I liked that you made a framing argument for each portion of the debate o Start insulating yourself from the ability of the aff to say their advantages solve the impact o Be careful about unsubstantiated claims like “people think Romney is incompetent on the economy”—sounds too bold—either read a card or soften the language here because that’s not exactly true (and is necessarily not true for your link story to be accurate)

Round 10---Comments by Robel Worku
Aff vs AV Jordan-Cole

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: intrins arg doesnt make sense. just reword it i guess. but otherwise i thought the 2ac was awesome 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: correct decision to go for 50 state fiat and i thought you were awesome on it. seemed like you have a lot of offense in the debate but didnt know what to do with it. you sort of extended like 5 impacts but didn't make comparative impact claims in relation to the da. offense is good, but always stop and ask yourself how much you really need. picking just a couple of impacts and going all in on them is preferable to just throwing like 5 out there and seeing what happens 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: