Nathan


 * Round 2**
 * Judge:** Arnett
 * Speaker Position:** 2A
 * Comments:**

2AC

-Structure of debating the case-1) reference 1NC argument by name and number 2) extend relevant 1AC evidence 3) Indict their evidence 4) read more evidence only if necessary -put together HSR key to economy list for 2AC -Redo should be the 2AC/Case -Cap K-Best arguments are about the 1AC e.g. HSR solves warming, oil dependence, is HSR intrinsically capitalist? -CP-Do the CP permutation is important against different investment mechanism cps, More solvency arguments e.g. delay, etc. -Politics-time allocation---need to get done with case more efficiently

CX

Prep for CX like a speech

2AR

Key issue is getting case back in the debate regardless of framework arguments. If the case is an impact turn to capitalism then why does this matter. Fiat is illusory yes, that is the point of fiat---to imagine a world that escapes inherency.

View the debate in different chunks. These are all issues that should be prepped in many ways before the debate ever starts -Framework -Perm -Alternative/Transition wars -Environment -Value to life


 * Round 3 - July 17**
 * Judge:** Linda
 * Speaker Position:** 2A

- Don’t talk into your computer screen. Tilt the computer screen slightly away from you, and don’t put it directly in between you and the judge. - All of you need to work on clarity! Remember, speed doesn’t matter if the judge can’t understand you. Prioritize volume and enunciation over rushing through cards sloppily. - Both teams have major problems with organization in the rebuttals – in the 2NR and the 2AR, you need to highlight the key issues and impact calculus on the top, and then address issues in a neat fashion. - Both teams have the tendency to get bogged down into minutia, and most clash is simply “yes” and “no” back and forth. When you answer an argument, you should not just repeat what your partner said, but make distinctions and new warrants, and compare evidence in order to get ahead. Otherwise you are just staying on the same level, and the judge does not know how to evaluate these competing claims.
 * __General Comments __**


 * __2A Comments __**
 * 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: **You need to work on clarity and stamina.


 * 2) Recommended Drills: ** You should do over-enunciation drills and pen drills, and do these for extended periods of time to increase endurance.

- Good embedded clash on case and good job remembering to extend your 1AC impacts. However, you spent a little bit too much time on case (more than three and a half minutes), and this can be solved by you reading your case more and knowing its warrants better so that you make more efficient arguments and don’t spend so much time thinking about what you are going to say next. - Very good arguments against the states counterplan – this affirmative is strategically insulated against states.
 * 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: **

- Overall, solid 2AC, but you need more offense. You should read add-ons and more turns, particularly on the capitalism kritik. On the spending disadvantage, you should read cards from the other HSR affirmative that says stimulus spending is key to the economy to answer their Keynesian economics bad arguments.
 * 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: **

– You gave the order of your speech like a 2NR would, by putting offcase positions on top and case on bottom. Instead, you should put your best offense (your case) on top. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">– You need to do a clean impact calculus at the top of the debate. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">– You also seem to be on the verge of making good arguments and finding key issues, but you need to impact those issues out. For example, on the kritik you point out that they have many contradictory positions and this is why the other team is also capitalist. But you need to go a step further and also point out this a reason why the judge cannot vote negative – because they do not have a coherent, consistent position, and all of their arguments link to one another.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">– Think about what your best offense in the round is and go for it. I also suggest kicking an advantage, and spending more time on your best offense. For example, I think you can just go for the military/hegemony component of your case and explain how your impact outweighs, especially since they do not have any impact defense against it. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">– Don’t depend on your partner’s flows – you should be keeping track of the round yourself. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">– You need to have a common message, and talk to your partner before the round about staying on point. For example, most of the debate was full of contradictions – for example, do you create roads or do you maintain roads? Do you deficit spend or do you not deficit spend? Do you increase jobs or not? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">– You also need to explain your warrants a lot better. For example, on the spending disadvantage you explain that you solve “key macroeconomic benefits” but never explain what those benefits are.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: **

Round 8
Judge- Rahim

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Needs to get faster 2) Recommended Drills: Speed drills 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: ?? 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Needs to get off the cards, start doing more ev comparison and analysis 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: 2NC: Too spread out—not nearly enough impact work done on T, needs much more evidence comparison and analysis on dedev—trump up that all that matters is the environment, wars in the short term don’t matter, answer that growth solves warming—politics—less evidence and more framing issues on the uniqueness debate, do impact work on why rels turn heg, etc, answer the add-on 2NR: Needs to get more efficient and get to case with more time, set up framing issues for the judge on the impact debate: insulate your impacts from trade and hegemony. Give me reasons why I should prefer your uq evidence over the aff’s. Go more in-depth on case, go for the solvency arguments. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Above.

Round 11

Round 11---July 27th---Comments by Linda Pei

 * __<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;">Work on clarity.


 * <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;">You should do over-enunciation drills, pen drills, and drills in which you insert a word (like “wow” or “a”) between every other word.


 * <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;">Evidence comparison
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Qualifications – their authors have degrees in philosophy – they are not experts in the field
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Hypocrisy – Zizek advocates a transition away from capitalism, but is rich and makes a living off of critiquing capitalism (ironically)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Epistemology – explain why your epistemology is sound and doesn’t affect your truth claims – you have specific, qualified evidence that cites studies


 * <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;">Narrow down on your best offense – the 2AC makes a lot of good arguments that are not adequately responded to and in many cases even dropped that you should extend and use to exploit negative weaknesses
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Case debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Impact extension – it’s good to extend your impacts, but don’t just repeat the 1AC taglines – you have to respond to the block’s epistemology cards
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Framework
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">House of theory – use portable impacts to explain why your interpretation of debate (pretending to be the federal government and evaluating the policy consequences) is a good model
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Plan focus – extend reasons why you should get to weigh your impacts
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation – you have to explicitly extend the permutation – saying “extend the perm” is not enough. You have to specify which perm it is (“permutation do both”), explain what that does, and justify its theoretical legitimacy and ability to solve. Also remember to extend the double bind about residual links here.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Develop your arguments better – this means citing specific examples. For instance, on the technology debate, you need to cite instances of when technology developed for profit has helped the poor (high-yield agriculture helps reduce world hunger).


 * <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;">Re-do your rebuttal with the above suggestions.

Judge: Arnett Neg vs Yesha and Nina
 * Round 12**

Dedevelopment. Need to talk about Impact calc at the top. Need to draw out more distinctions. For example on the growth = war debate. 1-Give historical examples 2-Growth = military buildups 3-Growth = Resource wars. Need to dig in on environment impact. Elections-TF. Look through aff file for evidence to make TF argument. Need to do more on link turn debate. Challenge uniqueness.

2NR

Kick Politics. Choose dedev or Elections. Redo should be no elections. Dedevelopment you need an impact overview that includes environment, inevitability, war. How does it relate with the case.