Andrew

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Speed 2) Recommended Drills: Speed 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Read too much evidence, didn’t make enough args 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Way too inefficient on case, quickly impact your arguments and move on, answer the turns case and vtl args on the cap k, read less cards on dedev and make more use of 2ac evidence, do more work on the politics DA 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Above
 * __Practice Debate #10 - Aff vs. Tiffany/Abby - 07/27 - Comments by Rahim__**

Everyone needs to be better at paperless---1AC should be solved 1a---start out slower in the 1AC. Don’t ask questions like “where does it say extinction in your card,” they could ask you the same question about your 1AC evidence. Ask about the internal links to extinction, and ask how any particular impact scenario could destroy the entire world. 1n—Clear, but need to speed up a little bit. Start with impact calculus on the elections DA. Good job with the warming impact calculus. Good specific answers to their 2AC evidence. 2a---quick and clear in 2AC. Need to read fewer cards and do more explanation on case, you have many cards in your 1AC that answer their impact defense and general case arguments, use them! Good questions about alt. 2AR was good. You had an organized speech that discussed your aff’s impacts and the impact turns to the K. you should have explained your impact turns in the context of the aff plan---cap is key to stopping conflict, proven by the potential for airports to avoid economic crisis and conflict <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">2n---Pretty good pace---good use of case arguments in combination with the K (specifically, the arguments about drones). Could talk a little more specifically about the aff. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">2NR---try not to kick things at the beginning of your speech, at the same time, you did it efficiently and kept it well segmented. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">You explicitly conceded impact defense to warming on elections and then went for a warming impact to climate…think through that one a little more next time!
 * __Practice Debate #7 - Neg vs. Ruth/Ari - 07/25 - Comments by Zane__**

--Andrew's goals on the Affirmative were to (a) go for theory, (b) understand condo more, (c) be able to write overview/underviews better. The lab was also focusing on CX for this debate. --You have very nice volume and enunication during the 1AC. You have good intonation (focus on key words). I really would like for you to do 8 minute speaking drills in your dorm suite each night to help you get faster and to get you in a consistent rhythm. See if you can challenge yourself doing that over the course of the rest of the camp. Maybe get some of your suite mates involved so you can keep each other accountable (have them do speaking drills at the same time). --I did some start/stops with Andrew during the CX of the 1NC. I wanted to work on three things - follow-ups (which he started doing really well on), having the 1NC answer the question more specifically, and scaling back the intensity at times. --We do a good job explaining the story of our Aff on the economy debate but this was way too long for the 1AR. Your line-by-line pretty much just was a repeat of our overview. --For a redo, you need to get through the case in about :45. There is not a lot going on with the case debate and you spent way too much time here. --I am glad we read cards in the 1AR but I think we read cards in the wrong place. Reading an extension card on economy probably does not help much. I would have opted to have read an extension on cap and a non-unique on elections. Those are key nexus question in the debate. --What about the heg advantage and solvency? --REDO: :45 on the case but include heg and solvency in the order of the roadmap. Generally you want to keep your case flows together. Read cards in different places. I want you to do more line-by-line. You need to extend specific 2AC arguments (by number and label). --We need to answer the framework debate in the 1AR on the K.
 * __Practice Debate #6 - Aff vs. Abby/Tiffany - 07/23/2012 - Comments by Tate__ **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Clarity is fine – speed could improve. You slow down over the course of the speech and also stumble over some words. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">You shift and move around a lot when you’re speaking – you should try to break that habit (it’s sort of distracting) by concentrating on standing still while you do speaking drills. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">2) Recommended Drills: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Spread cards for 10 or more minutes at a time to improve endurance. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Read cards backward or cards you’ve never read before to reduce stumbling. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I don’t think cards were necessary in the places you had them. In order to get credit for reading a card you have to read the text – saying “we have a card here” and reading the cite is not enough. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">They didn’t answer your impact defense on the disad – since extending that will take out the entire disad, you should use your limited time on that. More generally, you need more time on politics and probably less on case. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Impact the states tradeoff argument – because the plan would be funded by cuts to other programs, there would be no net increase in spending and therefore no stimulus effect. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">On case I think you addressed most of the relevant arguments but there were some technical issues: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Line-by-line – your arguments should reflect the same order as the neg args they’re answering, in order to make it clear what you’re refuting <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Argument development – you spend a lot of time reiterating the 2ac tag and cite for each argument you extend – you should try to use some of that time to explain a warrant for __why__ you are right and the other team is wrong. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Evidence use – the __only__ scenario in which you should read case cards in the 1AR is if it’s a crucial argument that NONE of the 1AC or 2AC evidence answers - I don’t think that was the situation here. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Try to improve organization and argument development on case; extend the impact defense on politics instead of part of a link turn. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> --You all need to know your speech order before you stand up to give the speech. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">--In cx, questions of the form “you said [argument], but don’t you think [counterargument] is true?” are unlikely to get the other team to just concede they’re wrong. Try to use cx to highlight __flaws__ in their arguments rather than trying to get them to concede. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">--Negative – write counterplan texts __before the round__! You need to ensure that cp’s like states match up as well as possible with the aff so that they can’t get solvency deficits based on your using the wrong mechanism or some other accidental change.
 * __Practice Debate #3 - Aff vs. Isabella/Anja Beth - 07/16/2012 - Comments by Connor__**
 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Additional Comments about the Debate: __**

__**Practice Debate #2**__

__**Practice Debate #1**__

--Students were asked to create a five minute Negative block speech to extend an Obama Good Elections DA. Students were given the 1NC shell and a file of potential cards they could use for their extensions. They used their own 2ACs from the night before as the 2AC to answer when they gave the extension speech. --Want to start off slower --Do impact calc at the top --Maybe try the backwards drill or inserting a word between every other word like the or and. --You get really loud at random times --Why does this California argument matter? Wont Obama win Cal. Either way? --Spent a lot of time --Need to tell me when you are going into the link debate—you want to make more analytical contextualizations of evidence instead of just breezing into it because I need a framework --Need to make distinctions between your internal link and their’s? Why is Obama better than the plan? Why does their evidence not get the same impact? Long-term solution? I need to know this. --Why is the plan not climate leadership? --Anthropgenic? This doesn’t make sense—you cant concede it—just say double bind with the aff? Read an external impact? --Don’t just be reading cards --If theres a problem you have to be ready—make sure to take the time? --You jumped around back from the internal link debate to the uniqueness debate—you need to tell me what this is? Otherwise the flow gets really screwed up --Speak towards me  --Obama loses meaning the plan doesn’t work --Evidence comparison
 * __Elections Negative Block Extension Speech - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Nate__ **

--Most all of the arguments you are making are responsive and smart! Just read a few more cards since you have some time left. --It seems like you might need more of your cards highlighted - they seemed awfully short. --You're speaking is pretty good, but you should work on keeping up a steady pace. You change speeds a lot. Speaking drills will help this. --Good job pointing out the plan solves warming! It's smart and makes it hard for the neg to win the disad. However, you should __ not __ be reading the "warming isn't anthropogenic" card - this contradicts your 1AC advantage. Maybe make some analytic arguments about why Obama couldn't get an energy bill passed through a GOP congress.
 * __Elections 2AC Activity - 07/09/2012 - Comments by Abe__ **