Isabella

__Both teams need to be better at paperless. Remember to save your speeches before you end prep time, if possible. __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Start out your speech a little slower, couldn’t understand the first tag. You are clear, but need to let the judge adjust to your spreading style. You are knowledgeable about the aff’s case arguments, so you were able to ask good cross-x Qs. Do not use prep for 1NR!!! 2) Recommended Drills: Pen drill (talk slowly, DON’T SPREAD, but overenunciate every word, Backward Drill (spread from right to left from the last word in card to the first word in tag,), Spread for 5 minutes overenunciating every syllable 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good use of CX of the 2AC. At the same time, you got bogged down in some irrelevant questions. Try and stay focused on whatever goals you hope to achieve in CX and don’t ask questions that do not advance you in relation to those goals. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: You need to use more warrants from your 1NC Cards, don’t just say “extend 1nc1, warming is not anthropogenic” and move on. Say “extend 1nc ---warming is not anthropogenic---ice core data, cloud fluctuations, and flaws with their models prove that X, Y, and Z”---you did a good job reading additional evidence to answer their specific arguments, but needed to use your 1NC cards more strategically. Don’t rely on saying that the perm was underexplained in the 2AC. Ask the 2A about the perm when you are cross-exing the 2AC, even if the argument was vague in the 2AC, the 1AR will inevitably explain it more so you need to understand what they think the perm is. when debating the counterplan, you need to do better debating on why it solves specifici internal links of the aff (emissions reductions for warming, or competitiveness for the market cp)---don’t just say free market is better than state in all instances, talk about how the state has mismanaged airport policy in the past or why the government is specifically unequipped to deal with Next Gen. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:
 * __Practice Debate #8 - Neg vs. Vivienne/Trisha - 07/25 - Comments by Zane__ **

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Speed 2) Recommended Drills: Speed, efficiency 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Need to be more efficient on case, leverage much stronger solvency deficits on the cp, more internal link indicts on politics, impact defense on politics 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Cards were read in the most vital places, no real complaints here. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: 2AC: Put dropped advs at the top, rather than bottom of your flow. The rest is above. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">2AR: Needed to pick an advantage, likely hegemony, and dig down on it, explain why the it turns the impacts to both disads, and is not solved by the counterplan. Put the case on top. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Above.
 * __<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Practice Debate #7 - Aff vs. Noah/Avi - 07/24/2012 - Comments by Rahim __**

--I had Isabella redo a 1NR that was an extension of the Elections DA and the case debate. We had two fundamental goals: (1) a more evidenced speech (building a wall against 2AC arguments, especially on off-case positions) --We were definitely more precise in our wording but we want to make sure our arguments have traction. Analytics should follow the following structure - (a) label/tag, (b) the warrant - 1 or 2 sentences of what the argument is, (c) impact - so, what? - what traction does this argument get you? --We got through case much faster and I prefer this case extension to yesterday. However, it was a bit blippy today. We want to do more than just extend a repetition of cites/tags. An ideal world would have been adding one more sentence to each case sentence that either gave a more specific warrant of the card from the text of the evidence OR to give the impact of why that case extension matters. --I am glad we had some overview on the Elections DA --We definitely had more evidence on the Elections DA in this speech today. I would like for us to highlight down the cards a lot more...some of our cards were really, really long. --I would like for you to talk more about the cards in the 1NC shell on the Elections DA. Often times, the best cards you have on a DA are the cards read in the 1NC. Don't forget about those! Extend them and talk about them.
 * __Rebuttal Redo - 1NR - 07/22/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

--Isabella had isolated three goals in lab to work on for future negative debates - (1) no repeat of cards (diversity of arguments), (2) clear transitions enunciated between cards/arguments, and (3) solid overviews. I will be looking for these when watching the debates. --Good volume and clarity. I do think you are getting faster. :) --I was a bit confused on the Elections DA. Did we read a card that was the internal link to US/Russian relations? If we did, we may not have read the tag. We jumped from the link to the impact and the link card seemed very long.  --Is Elections a net-benefit to Privatization CP? I don't think it is...  --Why are we taking prep time for the 1NR? This is a big no-no. You had the prep time the 2NC took as well as the entirety of the 2NC (which was about 12 minutes with the start-stop) plus the three minutes that the 2NC was being questioned. There is rarely, rarely a time when the 1NR should take prep. The only instance is when the 2NC does not get to major parts of the flow that they thought they were going to take.  --Isabella stood up for a 1NR that was extending Elections and case and announced that there were no new cards. I immediately stopped her. :) There needs to be a ton of new cards - every 2AC argument on elections needs 2-3 arguments to answer it...most of those need to be cards. We need a couple of new cards on the case. I can't think of a time when the 1NR would not need to read cards unless it was answering theory and going for T (and even then, there should be cards read in a lot of T extensions). --Make sure that we don't make any new arguments. If the 1NC and 2NC did not make any arguments on the economy flow, the 1NR can't make those new arguments. --Good to extend the drones will proliferate argument - explain that argument a bit more. Explain why the 2AC "inevitability" argument does not matter. --The "heg does not solve for war" argument is new - you can't make those arguments in the 1NR. --Good to extend cards by cite. --REDO for 1NR: (1) Eliminate new arguments, (2) Word efficiency - I want us to get through the case debate in 1 minute, (3) We need an overview on the Elections DA, (4) We need a lot more cards read on Elections DA.
 * __Practice Debate #5 - Neg. vs. Jennifer/Niti - 07/21/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

__** Comments Debate #4 **__

We started this speech but she did not have answers to the Federalism DA as noted in the prior comments. I told her to come back for a later redo once she had answers to the dropped net-benefit.
 * __Speech Redo from Practice Debate #2 - 07/16/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

Overall, I thought this was a good effort for your first set of research.A few broader comments:(1) Really take the extra time to make sure you have complete cites. At the very least, you need to make sure every cite has the url address. Ideally, you also want to make sure the full date is included (month and day if the website lists it) and the name of the article.(2) One research tip that all sophomores need to continue to focus on is to just think through the utility of the card. In some debates, a card about Europe developing a similar program may only be beneficial if that card then forwards an argument about the US could model it, it would improve the US system through coordination, etc.(3) A couple of your cards were on the short end. You included the entire paragraph but then only one or two sentences made an argument. Make sure, especially for Aff case cards, that the card has some type of warrant so it makes a full argument.Overall, nice work!
 * __Research Feedback - 1st set of cards for Wave #1 - 07/13/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

<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;">Pretty good speed and clarity <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;">Read cards for 10 min or more to improve speed and endurance <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Highlight down your evidence – this will improve efficiency/allow better 1nc case coverage <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Don’t read an econ impact when they already read one. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">States solvency is excessive – 1 or 2 1nc cards is generally sufficient <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The states tradeoff argument is based on a __1AC__ card – make sure you have a good flow of both aff constructives. As a rule, you should not bank on the other team’s failure to make an argument effectively – the 1AR could always read the missing card or fill in the gaps and then the 2NR will be in trouble. You should answer the __best version__ of the opponent’s argument, so in addition to pointing out flaws, refute the argument they’re trying to make. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Be careful of making args about one-size-fits-all policy – the CP to have every state build the same infrastructure project probably also links. <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;">Work on clearer line-by-line and refuting each specific solvency deficit (preferably with cards) in the order the aff makes them. Try to answer the trade-off argument more effectively. __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Additional Comments about the Debate: __ <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 - Neg vs James/Andrew - 07/16/2012 - Comments by Connor __**

--You may want to contemplate changing your roadmap order of the 2AC. It has become common practice for 2As to put their case before DAs and CP. Your case is how you are planning to win the debate and should receive priority in the order. --Good volume and clarity. --I would like to see us work on increasing speed and increasing our word efficiency. We had some very wordy analyticals (the permutation explanation, the O'Toole indict analytical) --No need to announce "line-by-line" when roadmapping the case flows. --When perming the CP, explain how the perm does not link to the net-benefit. That is the most important part of the permutation. --I would like to see more diversity of arguments on the CP in the 2AC. Avoid reading cards that are really repetitive (#2 and #3 make the same argument). --We dropped the federalism net-benefit to the states CP. Always look for those hidden net-benefits. --No need to create a separate sheet of paper for a one card indict - go ahead and put it on economy and tell the judge to cross-apply it to the solvency flow where O'Toole is also found. --We need A LOT more on the politics DA. Fiat solves the link is not really a compelling argument - teams win on it because the Negative drops it. The negative won't drop this argument with how long it is. You really only have two arguments on politics. --Highlight down the O'Toole card - this card really does not do much traction for you and it took you nearly 1 minute to read. --When extending cards on case, you need to talk about why those cards give you traction. You don't need to re-read the tags. Explain to me what the Coons evidence says. --Good to make evidence comparisons based on qualifications. --It is good to extend cards from the 1AC but we also need to read more cards. SPEECH REDO: I would like for you to redo the 2AC with a few goals in mind - (1) Answer the federalism net-benefit on the CP, (2) Add 2 or 3 new, different arguments on politics, (3) Put the O'Toole indict on the line-by-line against one of the O'Toole cards the Negative read, (4) answer every 1NC case argument - for example, on economy, we really just addressed 2 of the 8 arguments - we dropped a decision-rule argument (liberty). We may want to start with this redo with making sure we have a complete flow of the 1NC. --Again, I think you should be your case on top of the order in the 2AR. --You need an overview to the 2AR. How are you winning this debate? Focus on your case impacts and reasons why the CP won't solve in that overview. --Only extend what the 1AR extends - for example, you spend a great deal of time on the permutation but the 1AR does not extend it.
 * __Practice Debate #2 - Aff vs. Joann/Tiffany - 07/13/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

__** Practice Debate #1 **__

--Good volume --I would like to see us increase our speed a bit. We want to work on the "scanning and load" technique --Try to number your arguments...at the very least, you need transition words between your arguments. --Good clarity - you would have been easy to flow --Is the card you have "case solves the DA" really that or is it a link turn? --Try to have your answers follow a logical story, which is typically the story of the DA shell. Put your uniqueness answers/indicts first, your link arguments/turns next, and your impact answers (such as alt cause to warming - China) at the bottom. --Watch being repetitive in your 2AC frontlines - you want offense and variety. We don't need more than one card in the 2AC about the economy being important to Obama's re-election. --Had Isabella do a quick redo for me to number/transition between her 2AC arguments - easy fix!
 * __Elections DA 2AC Activity - 07/09/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **
 * -- ** Students were given a 1NC Obama Good Elections DA shell and a file of potential cards they could choose from to create a 3 minute 2AC to the DA.