Debate+Comments---Blake

Round 1---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Aff vs Debnil & Madhu

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed; some clarity problems on T 2) Recommended Drills: Work on increasing speed while maintaining clarity – reading evidence backwards, reading cards for 10 min+ to increase endurance+spead. 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Too much time on econ advantage – make use of 1AC rather than reading new cards Put more answers on the K – “cap solves environment” and framework at a minimum. If you put T on top, you need to start slow – you probably meet this T violation, but you can’t win that if your we meet arg is incomprehensible. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Read more cards on the K – transition wars, more impact turns, etc. Draw out warrants in your cards more – this substitutes for extra case ev in the 2AC and makes the 2AR more credible. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: You should take some prep before the 2AC – you need to know your order and understand their case args before you can give a speech on them. You need an exclusive T interpretation – that is, not just “the topic includes us” but “ the topic includes only [set of affs that includes us]” – if you don’t do this you will lose to the limits DA. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Add Silver prodict to your evidence comparison. Answer their link turn more comprehensively – you need “SQ solves FL” and “FL is not sufficient to solve the DA” or else they can concede Obama wins FL and say that means he wins the election. This particular situation isn’t the most threatening but it’s usually good to have diverse link turn answers. Spend less time on states – they haven’t made a conditionality arg which bolsters your reject arg not team claims.

Round 2---Comments by Robel Worku
Neg vs Andrew & Eric

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: clarity issues. Label your off-case positions. 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: need to spend much more time on the permutation in the 1nr. Felt like it was going to be very difficult for you to beat them on it later after the lack of explanation in the 1nr. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: permutation

**Round 4---Comments by Alex Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You really should slow down -- you are straining yourself way too much when speaking and it makes you unclear Don't speak directly into your computer 2) Recommended Drills: Pen drill for 5 minutes going as fast as you can while being really clear. Then start reading conversational speed and slowly slow up till you're going at a smooth rate that's fast, but you shouldn't be huffing/puffing/breathing crazy/etc. Basically be speaking normally but an accelerated rate 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: You really need to do more warranted analysis of your arguments. You kinda just asserted that they dropped the link and that that was really important. You need to explain how your specific link args (which you should tailor to the aff) interact with your impacts to the K. So for example, if you win that a lot of poor people are locked out of megaregions, it proves that the aff's embodiment of the capitalist system that you critique has material impacts. Can't just assert an epist arg w/o making a link - explain what about the aff's knowledge production means that it's not true - saying it's capitalist and therefore false is insufficient 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Pretty good time allocation - maybe one less FW card so you can spend more time answering their args - you don't really have time for a ton of ev. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Way more explanation---all of the link stuff we talked about after the round Need a coherent FW interp - what is the role of the judge and why is your interp of debate more productive/predictable/etc.?

Round 5---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs Kaycee & Olivia

2AC needs to start out slower. difficult to adjust to your speaking style immediately. The first 5-10 seconds should transition from slow to fast naturally. You need to think from the perspective of the 2AR before you make your decisions for the 2AC. What are all the possible 2NRs, what is the likely 2NR, what is the most threatening 2NR? These are all the questions that you need to be thinking about. In this case, the interactions between their keynes bad arguments and the elections DA could have been a place where you take advantage of some interaction. IE---if you make all of your answers to the Obama DA about the economy, then winning the Keynes debate also wins you the election debate because an economic boost would swing it to obama, or, guarantees an obama victory. You don't have to definitively win that Obama or Romney is winning the election right now to straight turn it, you need to win that it is impossible for Obama to win if there is a double dip/without increased jobs or econ performance. Without the aff there is no chance Obama can win with the coming double dip, which means it's try or die for the link turn (or something along these lines). After this, you needed to work harder on using/extending specific warrants and having depth of explanation to respond to a pretty extensive 1NC on case. I would recommend reading through the 1AC and writing/typing out all the warrants and possible applications of particular warrants to neg arguments with your partner. You both brain storm ideas for using different 1AC cards in different ways and develop a common understanding of the aff. 1AR needs to be more picky. make some choices and limit the arguments you go for. On case, you probably need to consider kicking an advantage to make up some time. Depth of explanation and warrant diversity are the gold standard (both using a lot of warrants, but also impacting your arguments better and adding comparison). Take Keynes as an example---top level debating goes back through the warrants from the evidence, next level analysis requires historical examples or explanation of the economics behind keynesianism/models that prove it, the next level is explaining why history or economic modeling should be preferred to ideological austerity (or whatever args you wanna make against their keynes bad args). You can only get that level of depth by making strategic choices about which args to extend, which requires vision of where the 2AR wants the debate to go---this requires extensive discussion of the aff and its answers to various position, and more importantly, discussion between the partners in the actual debate. Also, you need to be able to do the historical analysis to prove your arguments---wikipedia is a great tool (at least to give you topics to pursue articles about). Talk about the New Deal in your Keynes good 2AR.

Round 6---Comments by Phil Holsted
Aff vs Abla & Shaun

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: faster 2) Recommended Drills: 20 min of speaking drills a day 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: start off slower make predic on t WAY SHORTER CARDS ON CASE case - kick out of some internal links imbedded clash kick out of adv? add more into the 50 state fiat block make case args on the k make ext comes first and consequences key args their U cites reasons obama will win that the L doesnt take into account dont read stimulus spending good so you can no L DAs with spending inev you control L uniqueness CHINA IS NOT THE ONLY REASON HEG IS NECESSARY 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: why did you choose that order? said "specifically" way too much answer these timeframe args - relations dont collapse overnight pick one adv and ditch the others - explain everything through the framing of that impact spend a bunch of time on the florida scenario -> make args why their generic ev about the US doesnt account for florida -> specificity key 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 7---Comments by Nathan Bennett
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: --you were pretty clear-- 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: too much time on the case—you did a good job with embedded clash, but still need to work on using the language of the 1ac more so that you can explain the case faster --don’t need to reexplain each point on flow just quick explanation --you need to impact your solvency defecits in terms of 1ac advantages or 2ac add-ons instead of as vague reasons why the cp isn’t as good --make sure that you change your blocks for HSR -probably don’t want to stake 100% of the debate on the warming arguments --scientific, not scientifical --very good job honing in on uniqueness overwhelms argument in CX --good indict of their evidence --don’t let them get away with arguments that you think are wrong—spend more time there and make sure to make your point clearly

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: --I know that you are reading a different aff than usual, but you need to know your aff evidence and its warrants a lot more—do speaking drills using the 1ac and your 2ac blocks to familiarize yourself with the most important ideas. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: --good strategy to go for uniqueness overwhelms the link but you need to execute it a little but better—you should concede certain warrants in their evidence as to why the election will go for Obama as reasons EXTERNAL to the plan that he can sustain popularity --you need to couple this with some link defense—explaining why the plan wouldn’t cause all these groups to shift is necessary in a debate with uniqueness overwhelms --tell me what happens if you win fifty state fiat—does that mean I reject the arg? Does that mean that the case o/w? you need to be doing the legwork for this

Round 8---Comments by Phil Holsted
Neg vs GR Emily & Neeral

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: faster on tags 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 1NC better politics link dont read states solve deficit spending good if aff doesnt claim that title your politics DA your romney strikes card says "if rom wins iran will not get nukes" - bad for you make everything more specific to their adv -> they arent about generic deficit spending use the args you asked about in CX on the case need to answer heg 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: answer the offense on dedev take more than just the econ flow go more line by line need to answer heg and comp way too defensive you should spend more time in prep reading their evidence so you can make args against their warrants and do comparison 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 9---July 27th---Comments by Linda Pei
Aff vs GR Anjay-Patrick

__2A Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: You need to work on clarity on cards.

2) Recommended Drills: You should do pen drills and overenunciation drills.

3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments:
 * Time allocation – your time allocation was decent – but I would have liked to see you spend a little more time on the capitalism kritik and politics DA.
 * Case
 * Embedded clash – good embedded clash on case
 * Impacts – don’t forget to extend your impacts in the 1AC. On the economy advantage, when you extend your impacts, you should also explain how this disproves the capitalism kritik.
 * Solvency – you don’t need to read that Solomon card that climate change is real – the negative already agrees with you on this (they read the “climate change causes extinction” Diebel card in the 1NC). Instead, you should spend more time extending your 1AC evidence from solvency and inherency that says climate change is coming now and is inevitable – you need to extend specific warrants why we are past the tipping point.
 * Hegemony advantage – you need to more explicitly extend your internal links to hegemony, and don’t forget to extend your impacts.
 * Exploit 1NC contradictions – please see the above comments I gave the 1NC about contradictory evidence – you should exploit these, specifically by conceding that there is infrastructure spending now, which takes out their turns and their politics DA. But you should argue that this spending, although it non-uniques the negative’s arguments, is not sufficient to solve the case.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States counterplan
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States links to politics
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Shields the link
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Double solvency

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Make sure to do more evidence comparison on politics – make fun of their qualifications and warrants!

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States CP
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Time allocation – get to the States CP with more time
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Warrant explanation – you need to explain why the federal government is key
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States can’t solve the trade advantage – Commerce Clause only allows the government to deal with interstate commerce.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">States can’t solve the hegemony advantage – we need interoperable and standardized military infrastructure – we can’t risk the states doing something different.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Double solvency
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Permutation shields the link
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The counterplan links to politics (or it doesn’t link, and doesn’t solve your link turns)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More offensive arguments – most of your arguments are solvency deficits that say the counterplan can’t solve “as well” – you need to emphasize arguments such as your “state politics warfare” arguments that prove that the counterplan can’t solve //at all// and could actually make things worse.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Politics DA
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">If you are going for the link turn, you need to explain it more
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">More analysis and evidence comparison on the uniqueness and link debate
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">“Uniqueness determines the direction of the link” – if you control uniqueness, and you win that Obama will lose now, there is only a risk that you improve his chances

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Try out your re-do with the above suggestions.

Round 10---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs GR Morgan-Brian

• The T substantial argument is pretty dumb—I’m not sure I would read this • Speaking style: sometimes you pause after the tag—I think that disrupts your tempo—try not to do this • On the K— o You need some sort of impact framing—the aff has extinction impacts—you have 45k people dying—need a moral obligation argument  Need to do better impact calc • Neg block in general: too big—why is every flow there?? You spend about a minute 30 on the K <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">