Debate+Comments---Julian

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

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good volume and clarity. Work more on emphasizing taglines and the clarity of authors and cites.

2) Recommended Drills: When doing speaking drills, practice emphasizing taglines and cites.

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: You should have read more cards on politics and done more evidence comparison.

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: You spent too much time on case. I suggest kicking an advantage, or at the very least not extending all of the internal links of the economy advantage (it’s a bit excessive). Make sure to use embedded clash. Instead of trying to answer every single argument, pick your best offense and go for those arguments.

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Get to the counterplan and the disadvantage with more time. Use embedded clash. Spend more time developing your offense – i.e. the crowd-in arguments on the economy advantage, and the link turns on the politics disadvantage.

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

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You were pretty quick and generally clear on tags, but sometimes you slurred your words within the cards and it made it harder to hear the warrant in you evidence. You also started kind of unclear/too fast so maybe start with politics to make that easier.

You do a weird think where you get silent and then loud again—try to make yourself the same voice at all times Make link determines Uniqueness arguments especially for an elections DA because the uncertainty argument is pretty solid for the AFF Read a brink card to avoid U o/w L Spend less time on the Link and more on the internal link/impact debate because that’s probably the weakest part of this da and seems to have been where they were investing more time CX: There are 47 prefectures in Japan—stop that line of questioning faster Try to do more argumentation, less clarification Look more at the job

2) Recommended Drills: Try overenunciation drills, the backwards drill, or a word between every other word drill. 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good job with evidence—you mainly read more cards and could’ve done a little better job on indicting their evidence and extending yours to make the speech even easier/time effective. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Not sure how them needing a net increase makes this CP competitive Zakaria, not Zacharia Do more internal link defense instead of just impact defense They didn’t read megaregions Mostly above

Round 3---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Aff vs Stryker & Taylor

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally fine – your volume tends to fluctuate oddly from loud to quiet which is sort of distracting – work on making your spreading closer to a normal speaking tone. 2) Recommended Drills: Read 10 min or more of cards every day to improve speed and endurance. 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Lots of people put ptx last because of the ability to make a few or a ton of answers depending on available time – might be something to consider. Line by line on case could improve – I think you dropped some important defensive arguments, although you dealt well with their econ turns. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: A card or two on the cp would probably help perceptually – new solvency deficit arguments or an add-on are two options 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Emphasize more that the case accesses the elections impact. I didn’t really understand the 2AR strategic choice – I thought you could clearly go for the oil advantage given the 2nr concession of the warming impact and failure to weigh the DA against that advantage. If you’re going to use this strategy, make sure it’s clear what you’re doing on the econ advantage – you need to concede specific arguments and slow down a little to make it very clear what you are kicking and what you’re going for. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Frame the debate around the warming impact and how it’s an existential risk that outweighs the war impact to the DA.

Round 5---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs Shaun & Abla

too fast on theory -need to have plan texts for counter plan competition -answer the uq press with "link swings it"— 1NR block division—we talked a lot after the debate about why you going for the d/a while the 2NC was the K didn’t make much sense—especially because you read a util card (!) which allowed the aff to weigh their impacts against the V2L cap impact work on transitions between arguments "go the link" spin in terms of deficit reduction—plan is not perceived as transportation

Round 6---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Neg vs Kaycee & Olivia

Clarity was good for the most part – you could enunciate a bit more when reading things like T violations that aren’t strictly cards. You got REALLY unclear at the end of the 1NC on the case – I couldn’t flow a single tag on the solvency page.

There was no violation read for the Transpo Infrastructure T violation – as of the 1NC, I have no idea what the plan does, because the definition wasn’t very clearly read.

Virilio K – you might not want to just read a very complex K put out by another lab verbatim, with no changes – if I were you, I would have changed up the tags to make it more intelligible – as of the 1NC, I have no idea what the argument is.

I wouldn’t read two CPs with only one net-benefit between them – it doesn’t really do anything for you strategically to have two CPs with only one disad in the debate. If the aff turns your DA, they win pretty much no matter what – that just lowers the bar for them too much.

CX: you had a great opportunity to explain your relatively complex state decoupling CP in the CX, and you didn’t really take it – the explanation was still relatively confusing – I ultimately figured out what the CP did, but you could have seized an opportunity to make it really clear.

DUDE! You can’t say the DA turns the economy in a block when you’ve extended dedev!

You could craft your link arguments a little more specifically to what the aff has said – for example – you didn’t really point out that the 2AC link turn was generically about infrastructure spending, not the plan – the recent transportation bill should have solved that link turn, but doesn’t trigger the link because its spending was accounted for, and the plan’s over-and-above deficit spending would been seen differently.

Round 7---Comments by Alex Miles
Neg vs Zach & Elsa

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Need to go way slower in the 1nr on your analytics - you can't blaze through complicated K stuff at top speed 2) Recommended Drills: None 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: - Didn't spend enough time on cap solves war --- that's the main part of the aff's offense that they are going to go for - Fantastic work on the ethics stuff --- but you really need to make it less foofy and make it way more efficient --- there's no benefit to repeating yourself so much in different terms 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: - Too repetitive on the ethics stuff at the bottom you spent too long explaining why radical negativity and freedom were the only ethical options - Need to realize that the aff is going to go for impact turns so you have to make more tailored link args to short-circuit their access to them 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - Do more specific link work v. the aff --- 1ac cx set up that the aff only helps a very limited amount of the population, so you should use that to your advantage - Wayy more efficient on the overview

Round 9---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs GR Morgan-Brian

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: clear enough, fast “That’s Zalmay”---funny Thoughts on Case Arguments - “HSR is a fetish item that countries use to gauge their competitiveness”---what is the material impact to this? How does this interact with your hegemony internal links? Explain the China scenario better---you were good at answering their arguments about one-child policy, but not good at connecting your responses to the overall story of the advantage/theme of the 2AC. Good cross-ex questions about un-underlined portions of the uniqueness evidence. 2AR You need to choose better in this speech---choose one/two impacts to emphasizeand debate in depth, choose which arguments to go for against the DA---I don’t think you need to go for uniqueness unless you want to straight turn, but if that’s your goal, you need to spend way more of your speech on uq/link turn. I think a better strategy would have been to attack the DA on the link/Internal link level. Use your link turns to prove there is zero risk of a link, only a chance of a boost for Obama in the polls because people like HSR, combined with the Transportation Bill Link Pounder to prove that deficit spending is not a single issue big enough to derail Obama. Finally, use your economy advantage as link offense. Notes on 2AR Redo: not just Romney, say Obama or Romney would strike in case of massive decline---

Round 10---Comments by Rahim Shakoor
Neg vs GR Patrick-Anjay

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Not really needed, he was going for T 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Need to impact limits esp Rowland 84, Was too spread out, need to answer functional limits check, that no aff meets, better on the distinction between the effect of the plan and the effect of regular affs, need to impact FX T more, preempt functional limits and generics check, more time on reasonability 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: