Kushal

__** Practice Debate #10 - Aff vs. Vivienne/Trisha - 07/27/2012 - Comments by Tate **__ --I thought this was a very strong 2AC - your frontline to cap was offensive and diversified. I do have a few tweaks to just tighten it up: (1) Move your argument about the ability to weigh your impacts (I believe it was 2AC 8 or so) to the bottom of your framework discussion...this is the rationale for why you should get your framework. (2) It is fine that your "cap inevitable" card is so far down in your frontline. This is one of your strongest arguments, however. Having it farther down on the flow may mean that the Negative block won't spend as much time on it, but it also may mean that the Aff may not focus on it. Just remember where some of your stronger arguments are... (3) Your value to life analytical was way too blippy...I did not understand what your argument was or the impact to it (how it gives you traction in the round) (4) Do we have any cards that say the alternative to capitalism is worse? Some of this is your transition away from capitalism leads to war, but I would like a clear argument as to why the alternative system to capitalism is worse. Let's look through the file and the DeDev answers to see if we can tag anything as such. (5) I assume the perm that you find to be most viable is the first...if that is the case, add a sentence or two as to why the permutation is better than the alt alone. (6) Add another sentence to give a fuller explanation of "Ethics don't come first" (2AC 3 or so). --2AR: (1) You may want to pick and choose your theory cheapshot arguments. Judges don't love voting on these :) . If I am not voting on one, I am not likely voting for the other. Utilize the time on the substantive. Go for the one that was clearly dropped in the 2NC. I am also not sure this is where you should start the 2NR...you should package this cheapshot theory argument as a tie breaker...not start your speech as if you need it to win the debate. (2) You do a pretty good job with framework. However, I am not sure you caught with the 2NR was doing at the end - it sounded like she granted you that you could weigh your impact on heg but it has to be against value to life. Most of what you stated in the 2AR was about this world. (3) Slow down on the value to life discussion later in the speech (when you were reading off Joann's computer). The value to life is now the focal point in the debate - a 2AR should slow down and pick 2 or 3 key nexus spots in the debate and do some persuasive truth-telling (you don't have to be conversational speed but you have to be clear, persuasive, and allow the judge to mentally process the argument). (4) This is a bigger rant of the above. As I am listening to the 2AR, you are very good on the tech, line-by-line arguments. However, every argument sounds the same...you are giving each argument the same amount of time to talk about it and the same delivery style. The 2AR is about narrowing down the tech. The best 2ARs do not have as much ink on the flow or go for as many arguments as the 1AR. You need to focus the debate down a bit. There should be a few key places that your delivery and the time you invest should indicate that these are key places on the flow that you are winning. If this is a redo, circle these key spots on your flow during the preparation so you know these are places that you should spend more time, slow down, make eye contact with the judge, and give more intonation.

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed – you need to improve clarity, especially on tags – I missed a ton of the case arguments because you were unclear. 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good job developing the off-case early with additional cards Consider reading 1nc impact defense to the economy – I think that’s the path of least resistance given all of the internal link work in the 1ac. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Work on line by line and organization – your arguments should line up with the 2AC arguments they’re responding to. In particular you move back and forth between the link uniqueness and link debates in a way that is ard to follow – do each of those debates in one place rather than jumping around. Expand the uniqueness debate – you need more evidence and framing arguments that the 2nr can use to win this debate quickly. Don’t read new impacts – both Russia and India relations can be impact turned in the 1AR. You need an answer to the argument that the plan doesn’t deficit spend. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Improve line-by-line and make the coverage changes described above.
 * __Practice Debate #6 - Neg vs Vivienne/Trisha__ **** __- 07/23/2012 - Comments by Connor__ **

__** Comments Debate #4 **__

You did a great job with this first set of evidence. You have A LOT of cards here for the first wave and the cards, overall, are of high quality.I have a few overarching comments:(1) I am just wondering if you are fully using the NDI template. I spent a lot of time formatting your cards. The tag/cite/block headings were not being recognized.(2) Make sure you understand the Inherency story of the 1AC. Some of your negative cards about NextGen failing due to lack of funding is our Inherency story on the Aff.(3) Make sure your cards are actually advancing an argument. I thought there were a few of your cards that were just short FYIs (specifically the CO2 leads to global warming).Overall, A+ job!
 * __Research Feedback - 1st set of cards from Wave 1 - Cards due on 07/10 - feedback on 07/13 - Comments by Tara__ **

--I had Kushal regive a three-minute portion of his 2AC from the first practice round. I wanted him to focus on more signposting off of the original 1NC case arguments. --Kushal included a separate overview and then a line-by-line of the debate. Overview was good - appropriate length. --Structure was SO much better. This would have been very easy to flow and follow. Having the signposting of both the numbering of 1NC arguments and a brief label (i.e. "Now, line-by-line, 1NC #1 Metaregions") will just ensure the judge is following you and it makes it very difficult for you to drop 1NC arguments. --Nice work - you drastically improved on what I asked. This was an entirely different case debate than yesterday!
 * __Speech Redo - 2AC from Practice Debate #1 - 07/12 - Comments by Tara__ **

--Good to start your 2AC with the case --Good volume and speed, but see comment below. --Slow down on your case overview - it was too fast primarily because it was too blippy. You don't need to tagline extend each card at the top. --Redo: I would actually like for you to redo the case extension from the 2AC. You need to go off 1NC arguments. You are just making a dump of arguments. You can do this on the off-case (your job on the off-case is to answer the DA story) but we need to do line-by-line on the case debate. Literally, you start off your speech with a brief case overview if you would like (i.e. key framing questions) and then say "1NC 1 - they say we don't solve megaregions..." and then give your answers. Every answer you give on the case should be tied to a 1NC case argument. I would also like your redo to have a fuller extension of *key* 1AC cards. There needs to be 1-2 sentence explanation as to why those cards are worthy of you discussing them. --I am glad you made a reason why the permutation did not link to the net-benefit (Obama can shift the blame). --Structure your CP theory a bit differently - the subpoints should be (a), (b), (c), not (1), (2), (3), etc. The primary reason is that the theory argument itself is #11 - the reasons 50 state fiat is bad are all subpoints of that #11. --Good diversity of arguments on the CP in the 2AC. --I am glad we had an overview for the 2AR but it was too specific to individual answers the Negative did not handle well. Your overview should be writing the judge's ballot. Go outside "dropped link turn" - talk to me about the impacts of the debate that you are controlling. You need to focus on more key nexus questions, not just mistakes the Negative made on individual arguments. --You did a good job explaining your link turns in the 2AR. --I thought the 2AR needed more cards by cite extended. Judges tend to rely on the list of cites you give them in regards to cards that they want to call for.
 * __Practice Debate #1 - Aff vs. Ari/James - Comments by Tara__ **

--A really great speech overall with good time allocation and clarity. Start off with impact calculus and turns case arguments. --Good job doing a quick extension of your 1NC evidence and then reading more cards. Give a reason why post-dating matters (say something like "our ev postdates which matters because public opinions change all the time"). --Good job responding to the economy key argument by reading evidence that Obama is winning on it. It's not necessary to describe your evidence/summarize it immediately after you read it - that's something that can wait for the 2NR. -- Good job extending the link. Deficit spending argument is good. It's smart that you explain how deficit spending is perceived as bad for the economy. You should still try to do more comparison between deficit/econ internal links to reelection and explain why deficit spending matters more. -- You should point out that the China warming card (Wortzel) contradicts with their 1AC scenario. Concede it and say that's a reason they don't solve but a reason why the DA does because Obama will do diplomacy. -- Good job reading CTBT - because the 1NC didn't have an external impact to the DA (since warming was a 1AC impact), reading a new impact was very smart and would help you in the 2NR. -- The underview is a little unnecessary, however it does have a lot of components that would fit well in an overview.
 * __Elections DA 1NR Activity - 7/10 - Evan__ **

--Position yourself so you are not speaking directly into the laptop - you want to make sure you are making even pseudo eye contact with the judge. --I am not sure if it is just for this speech, but let's try to break the habit of "3-2-1" countdown before you start the speech. It makes you sound like a novice. :) --What does not make you sound like a novice is your speed and presence! Very nice on both counts. You have very nice speed for an incoming sophomore. You have good volume and intonation.  --Let's highlight a few of these cards down a bit. The first card, especially, was pretty lengthy for a 2AC.  --You chose the exact right cards to read to answer the DA (i.e. you did not include --Watch your analyticals - do they have warrants. For example, you say no internal link - Obama is not key to global warming and then read the China card - are these two arguments or did you just lengthen the tag? --Be careful about your indicts of their evidence. You are reading some staff writers as well. --I would like to see us sprinkle some of our analyticals in the midst of our evidence - avoid just reading a laundry list at the end. It is difficult to flow and judges will tune out.
 * __Elections DA 2AC Activity - 07/09/2012 - Comments by Tara__ ** ** - **
 * - ** Students were given a 1NC Obama Good Elections DA shell and a file of potential cards they could choose from to create a 3 minute 2AC to the DA.