Debate+Comments---Ben

Round 1 - Miles
Aff V. Joel/Bibas 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: - Start out a little slower in 1ac 2) Recommended Drills: pen maybe 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: - Group args more strategically - did the uq debate on ptx in more than one place - Pretty good comparison of ev though in general - didn't just extend your args, but also answered the other team's 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: - Good, but need to condense down the 1AR and go for less - go a little deeper on the few args you pick to go for - States theory needed to be cleaner - you basically extended your one education arg but didn't explain enough how it interacted with their args 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Condense down on politics a little more - UQ, Florida link turn, Impact D is what I suggest --- don't have time for the other misc args you went for - they just detract from you answering distinctions the block made Try to be a little more efficient on case --- sectionalize the debate more - frontload/tag your arguments so you can then just give a quick warrant and move on

Round 2---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Neg vs Abla & Elliot

__1NC__ I think your 1NC could be more diverse (this is also and maybe more relevantly a comment for the 2N) – the K seems like a kinda obvious throwaway, and you could definitely fit another net-benefit to the CP into the 1NC just by cutting a little bit on the case.

__CX__ Most of your CX was very good – my only criticism would be that you spent a little too much time on stuff that isn’t super-important in the grand scheme of things (i.e., one 2AC politics uniqueness card). You got much more utility out of your line of questioning about the oil dependence/warming advantage. When the person answering says “I don’t understand the question,” don’t just take their word for it and move on – especially if you feel like you’re getting somewhere.

__1NR__ Your “DA turns the case” section was just a little cheesy – using terrorism as the access point to turn the case kind of gets too far away from your core impact. And while it’s really good to be specific in terms of which internal links to the economy the DA turns, I think you sort of miss the forest for the trees – you need a good, solid argument for the DA turning the economy broadly, as well as each of their internal links. The transpo bill thumper gives you an opportunity to distinguish your link from the status quo – you should make more of that opportunity. I also think you could have been more direct in attacking their link turn ev/making comparisons between the link and the turn – in the speech, you kind of just read a bunch of link ev.

Round 3---Comments by Layne Kirshon
Aff vs Andrew & Jon

-2ac on case was too blippy - you answered some arg by just saying (they say investment but that's empirically denied) - be more explicit about what youre answering -too much time on theory on 50 state fiat -2ar was clear, but sometimes you just spoke into your flows which was hard to follow because you were monotone -i don't get the intervening actors thing...why wouldn't a country intervene and be like "hey, us, don't mess w/china?" - also long TF for solvency means it's easier to intervene in the aff's impact -good job indicting the russia impact, but you need to get started on that earlier -i didn't get the UQ arg about silver at the bottom - we'll talk in post-rd -go for link D - it makes the 70% arg a lot more credible, bc if you reduce the risk of the link to even 50% (not even 50% chance of a turn, but just like 50% chance from 0 link presuming the directoin is all unpopularity) you get the DA down to 35%...numbers are silly, but you get it.

Round 4---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs Kaycee & Olivia

cross-ex--you do want to say you force the aff to defend the federal government..was confused about your answer 2nr answer investor conf on CP -extend circuit breakers argument on case--analytic about unemployment benefits is good, but weak without other arguments because the sheer number of money pumped into the economy is low -extend econ impact Defense on the overview--no risk of extinction--intervening actors check, etc -liked diversionary theory arg

Round 5---Comments by Robel Worku
Aff vs Debnil & Madhu

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: speed and clarity were ok

2) Recommended Drills:

3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison:

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR:

--i think taking advantage of the nuanced uniqueness arg nidhi makes in c/x of the 2ac to leverage against most of their uniqueness arguments

--should do a better job of answering their turns case arguments on the top of elections. i dont think it was that devastating, but it can be in most debates

--condo to put pressure on the 2nr - i thought it was pretty good

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

**Round 6---Comments by Linda Pei**
__1N Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Your breaths are a bit loud, and your clarity really suffers during analytical arguments (when reading blocks off a computer).

2) Recommended Drills: I suggest doing speaking drills for an extended amount of time to improve stamina, and work on your breathing. Make sure to practice enunciation and slowing down when reading analytical blocks.

3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * Good evidence use on the States CP on the solvency debate
 * You need better impact cards, or a better external impact to the States CP (the Iraq modeling module is awful)

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR:
 * More organization
 * You let the 2AC dictate the terms of the block too much – the 2AC is very strategic with many add-ons and offense on different flows – but you need to stay organized and explicitly tell the judge where you are answering these arguments.
 * Coverage issues
 * No answer to the states can only deficit spend for two years
 * Be more explicit on the line-by-line on the states CP
 * Theory
 * Clarity – both in terms of speaking and in terms of the arguments themselves, you need more clarity on the theory debate.
 * House of theory – isolate one or two good standards, connect them to portable impacts, and explain how they outweigh the affirmative’s offense.

5) 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 Seth Gannon
Aff vs AV Jordan-Cole

2A Comments • “Condo” = conditionality • Not only that we need transportation infrastructure to overthrow capitalism, but we will need it even in a Marxist society! • You could put even more theory pressure on them, I think. Make your excellent states stuff a few different arguments. No states… but even if states, no multi-actor… even if multi-actor, must have solvency advocate… • We need more on States generally. I know they wrote it to no link the DAs we have, but we gotta figure something out. • I’m glad you started with uniqueness, but we need to start stronger on the fundamental distinction between our view of economics and theirs. We’re too deep in the weeds too quickly. • Good job re-characterizing the Khalilzad card, since that’s such a big part of the 2NR. • I love when the 2AR retraces the multiplier effects debate and helps resolve it. • A bit more organization would help clarify the debate. “Uniqueness decides the debate for us… blah blah blah… Given that all these impacts are inevitable, any aff solvency outweighs their link turn. We have three key links to the economy…1… 2… 3… they have one turn… blah blah blah… which is wrong because… blah blah blah… and even if they’re right, our links outweigh.”

Round 8---Comments by Garrett Abelkop
Neg vs GR Patrick-Anjay

1AC CX -Good – but – focused too much on impact defense and not the meta-strategic questions 2NC -Connections -Liked what you tried to do with some of the K concessions, not sure if I agree with them -D-Dev debate became very muddled – because it was just a huge stack of cards and I think you could have done a better job structuring and organizing your speech.

Round 10---Comments by John Warden
Neg vs AV Rebecca-Clara

• Make the 1NC longer – no reason not to go back • Need to be a little better answering the spending now and link arguments – some distinctions about how the plan would just be spun as new deficit spending and that a renewed focus on terrorism wouldn’t help Obama • New links to the DA – reasons why port security in particular is unpopular?