Debate+Comments---Kaycee

Round 1---Comments by Nathan Bennett
July 11 - Neg vs Olivia & Taylor

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Stuttering—try backwards or words in between Lame generic link card for politics The Keynes stuff was also kind of useless

2ac cx—need to focus more on the nexus parts of the debate instead of these tangentially related issues that never really get discussed 1nr—good job—the turns case args are kinda blippy and not great—maybe make 2 or 3 that are well warranted instead of having 7 different args that are blippy.

The case debate was good but you may want to choose your battles—focus on consequences, util, and the squo solves instead of trying to extend everything—against the Keynes debate was only going to help them and didn’t really get you anyway

2) Recommended Drills: Above 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: cite your 1nc evidence on the case more because you were kind of vague and fell into buzzwordy explanations instead of using your evidence that was a little more specific.

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: This was a big 1nr, and was good—needed more time on the warming impact d, and could’ve spent less time on the case, especially because theres almost no scenario in which you could actually just go for the case and politics

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: work more on the explantion on politics for turns case and the impact defense/warming debate, and also engage with them a little bit more on the uniqueness and link

Round 2---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Aff vs Zach & Elsa

on case you need a terminal impact..extend the aff (briefly) better flow transition—try not to lose tempo case needs to be cleaned up—remember embedded clash, full coverage, speed—we talked a lot about this after the debate and in my 2AC lecture try to get terminal impact defense out on the d/a--even if analytic--"oil dependence turns middle east war--makes the US more likely to intervene"--and no escalation—

D/A--also read disad theory--stupid but it costs the block time and that's what 2AC terrorism is about use spidey-sense to predict the block--i would have realized elections was inevitably the 1NR 2ar no try or die language frame econ impacts in investor preception--bc that's the D/A to the CP a lot of small things that are shallow--there's a lack of framing

Round 3---Comments by Linda Pei
Neg vs Joel & Mark

__1N Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed, but you need to open and move your mouth more to increase clarity and especially volume.

2) Recommended Drills: You should do over-enunciation drills and pen drills, and talk with much more volume while speaking.

3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: - On politics, you need to spend much more time indicting their evidence and explaining why yours is better, particularly since the 1NR is the best time to do this, since you have the most prep time of any speech.

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: - Impact calculus – good impact calculus at the top of the disadvantage. You can also make some link turns the case arguments, because if Romney is re-elected, he won’t implement Obama’s strategic pivot, and he would not be continuing infrastructure spending. - Along with reading cards, make sure to specifically answer warrants in the 2AC evidence. Don’t be afraid to make analytics, using your knowledge of history and the news to make fun of their warrants.

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - Give your re-do with the above suggestions.

Round 4---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Aff vs Nidhi & Ben

-read the CP text--both of you keep clarifying the "amendment" part--really really important to read all CP texts immediately don't need to say CP links to K be better at extending your impacts-- ex: warming, china hegemony, resource wars remember the answer to multiactor fiat--you're responding to the resolution case--lots of things get lost on the flow--you lose embedded clash--need 2AC blocks: ex: you read a lot of UQ int he 1AC about double dip coming now--and that's where you read your card--you should be able to list off warrants -unclear transition between flows--solvency -say conditionality every 2ac -make 50 state fiat block more efficient -make an intirnsicness arg on elections— 2AR tossing a bunch of args out there without framing—we’ve talked a lot about how you need to start with big framing questions and offense (generally impact calc and your aff)—ex: don't start with ticky tacky solvency questions

Round 5---Comments by Zane Waxman
Neg vs Blake & Tyler good speed, need more enunciation on text of evidence and on some tags Good debating of the disad in the 1NR---you won a large impact and organized it very well. I would add some complexity to your impact calculus first---develop one or two lenses for the impact more (let’s say, magnitude and timeframe)---you were good at winning why your impact accessed your impact lens, but not much on why that lens mattered the most (ie---for timeframe: can’t die twice, DA turns case, not other way around) Second---develop better turns case arguments---read evidence if you can, and talk about specific internal links from the 1AC

Next, I would add more specific answers to the evidence they read and extended in the 2AC---you should always be able to find an indict in the quals/date or the un-underlined portions of evidence---your 1NR would have been better with more comparisons and call outs of their ev---you’ve got the time to prep a very comprehensive speech, use it to be as specific as possible

Round 6---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs Julian & Elliot

2AC order: I think putting elections on the bottom isn’t a wise choice – it’s their main offense aside from dedev – I would definitely put the K on the bottom, and put elections in between the CPs – after the one you think is more threatening, before the one you think is less threatening. 2AC time allocation – way too much time on the K, relative to the elections DA – it’s the net-benefit to both CPs and pretty central neg offense – putting elections higher in the order definitely would have helped.

2AC case efficiency – try to do more ebedded clash, cut out repetitive phrases like “our X evidence indicates” – just make the argument and then say “that’s X author”. You spend three minutes on the case – I think that could have been cut down

Don’t ask your partner to write more T arguments during the speech – they need to be flowing

Clarity could be a lot better on things like theory, framework, etc – you read analytic blocks the exact same way you’d read a card – makes it very difficult to flow.

2AR: your 2AR on T in general was much too defensive. This is reflected pretty clearly in the very first thing you say in the 2AR: “you should vote aff if we don’t unlimit the topic” – you’re not going to win many T debates by foregrounding a defensive link takeout to the neg’s impact. You might not make the topic totally unlimited, but if limits is the controlling impact in the debate, and their interp is more limiting than yours, you’re still not going to come out ahead. Instead, you need to foreground a solid piece of offense – aff flexibility, education about security aspects of infrastructure, etc. This is something you start to do at the very bottom of the 2AR – in order to win, it needs to be the foreground. In general – try to make your speech less about saying “we didn’t do the things they said were bad,” and more about offensive reasons __your__ interp is good, and __theirs__ is bad.

Round 7---Comments by Linda Pei
Neg vs AV Cailin-Rachel


 * __1N Comments __**
 * 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: **Work on clarity.


 * 2) Recommended Drills: **Open your mouth more to increase enunciation and bring more air into your lungs to increase volume. You should do pen drills and over-enunciation drills.


 * 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Cross-x of the 1NC
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Stop starting your answers with “uh, sure”
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Better description of the capitalism kritik
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The Meszaros alternative to situate ourselves outside of capitalism emphasizes the importance of the individual in the round.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">It also makes an epistemology argument.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Articulate why independents are key – it’s because they are the only ones who haven’t made up their minds and/or are ideologically inclined to vote either Republican or Democrat.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Case debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Explain why trade leads to miscalculation and war.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Alternate causalities on the terrorism advantage
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">They don’t access global solvency – terrorists will attack other ports around the world.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">They don’t solve total terrorism – terrorists will use different means to attack.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Keynes debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">You should spend more time on the Keynes debate – read more cards and extend specific warrants.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">See the 2NR suggestions on the Keynes debate

Round 8---Comments by Seth Gannon
Aff vs AV Mike-Sarthak

Very nice debating all around. • Intrinsicness doesn’t make much sense on elections – even with Iran strike impact • Equity CP? I like the aggressively few answers but we have to make sure we’re reading relevant cards. • You explain the hege advantage as about overstretch… I don’t think it was linked to the Asia / Middle East advantage. Wasn’t the 1AC hege advantage about competitiveness? • In the 2NC CX, we need to be talking about the perm – we only made two answers, and the other one pretty clearly doesn’t apply. • Don’t call it “condo.” • Can we go for growth solves global warming? What is the warrant in that card? Maybe we’re in too much trouble on growth unsustainable. Does that card answer it? If conditionality is the only way to win, then I’m glad we made an aggressive 2AR choice. It is way tougher than substance, though. • We need to really ramp up the persuasive presence to win on theory. Don’t start by saying, “I’m not going for this because I have to,” because that makes it sound lke you do. • What contradictions were there in this debate? Give examples; don’t just assert it. • You’re not really facing the judge during the 2AR – we need some eye contact. Who are you trying to convince?

Round 9---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs GR Jack-Jon

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally good – try to breathe less frequently and keep your speech steady after breaths. 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: If you’re going to have a plank about delegating authority it probably needs a solvency advocate – that said, this plank is probably unnecessary. Diversify your answers on case – “aff doesn’t solve megaregions” should be 1 card in the 1nc not 3. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Impact calc should start by talking about your impact, then comparing it to theirs – starting with their impact was sort of odd. Your overview was a minute long – this is fine, but you probably want more/more diverse arguments in order to put pressure on the 1AR – if it’s just DA outweighs and 2 turns case args, it’s reasonably easy for the 1AR to respond. Line by line was generally good with a couple exceptions -Link uniqueness was undercovered – make more arguments e.g. “prefer issue-specific uniqueness” in order to make this more difficult for the aff, since it’s one of their best arguments. -I think you undercovered the econ-based link turn – you’re right that winning that flow would take this out, but that raises the burden a ton for the 2NR b/c they have to win offense on 2 different flows. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Make the coverage changes described above and generally work on making diverse answers to each 2AC arg.