Niti

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Don’t read royal twice—they read it in the 1nac Need uniqueness for case turns about drones because the 1ac made an inevitability argument Your clarity is fine, just work on speed CX: you have to be condo Don’t ask open ended questions Write questions on separate page 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: --if you aren’t going to read new evidence in the 1nr when taking the da and case, you need to at least indict theirs a lot more—make sure you are using all the prep time you have to have a good response to all of their evidence 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: this 1nr is spread thin because you have to take so much-you need to read more evidence against a lot the claims against the da do more internal link comparison between the plan’s internal link to the economy and the disad impact your arguments on the case more—if you win a solvency takeout, what does that mean for the whole debate?
 * __Practice Debate #9 - Neg. vs Tiffany/Abby -07/26/2012 - Comments by Nate__ **

--Pretty good volume and enunciation in the 1NC - you were easy to flow! --I stopped Niti after her reading of the States CP text. The text just had the 50 states do the plan with nothing to resolve the federal jurisdiction over the aviation industry. I guided Niti/Jennifer off-clock to how the CP text needed to be reworked. They reworked the CP text to resolve this issue. --I would love to hear some analyticals on the case debate! This is a goal the lab will have for the next negative debate. --There was too much tag-team during Avi's CX of Niti on the Cap K. My suggestion is that Niti needs to read through the Cap file a bit more and maybe even play a scaled down version of "King of the Hill" on this position with a few lab mates to try to be able to get through a CX on answering questions about it. --I heard Jennifer give the roadmap for the 2NC (CP, Elections, K...which left the 1NR with some case defense). I talked to Niti and Jennifer before the speech that I did not think this was a great block division. I am glad that they were making choices (kicking the CP) but the 1NR was going to become virtually irrelevant in this debate. I told them for future debates to give the 1NR an off-case to extend OR case if there was a lot going on it. --We are doing a pretty good job signposting on case in the 1NR but we need to work on word efficiency! It took us about 30 seconds to make our first argument. --Good to read extension case cards in the 1NR on the line-by-line debate. --I stopped Niti about 1:30 into the case extension. I wanted her to go much more indepth. At this point, the debate was "we solve for delays, no, you don't, yes, we do". What I stopped her on was "you don't solve delays". I had her go back to the card and find out why (Next Gen does not solve agency coordination, which means surveillance gaps still exist). I had her state that argument. --I also had Niti utilize solvency a bit more to help her hedge against some internal link claims on hegemony that she did not have answers to. --Your future goals for all of the practice debates left needs to be word economy. You need to spend your pre-round prep and your in-round prep scripting out more arguments. We should have the extension to the drones turn for the block scripted out. We are taking about twice the amount of time on each argument than we need to. --I zeroed in on a KEY, KEY issue. Niti was extending the case debate and did not have any of the 1NC case arguments flowed. This was a pretty frustrating moment for all of us. I talked to Niti and Jennifer about the need for backflowing. If Jennifer can't backflow, Niti should have done it during the 2AC prep. Heck, you could have preflowed those arguments (flowing them in the 1AC). There is never, never an instance where you can effectively extend arguments in later speeches if you don't have your initial arguments (especially on case) written out. I know Niti left feeling very frustrated about this (which I don't like seeing : but I tried to convince her this was an "A-Ha!" moment for her in the sense that if we get this error corrected, it will make so much more of her future debates better. I had Niti sit down and flow out the 1NC on the case advantage that was left and then go back and re-order her speech doc based on 1NC order of the original case arguments.
 * __Neg vs. Noah/Avi - Practice Debate #8 - 07/25/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

--We definitely have much more structured case impact framing overviews in this speech - it sounds so much better. I am able to process them mentally more. Most of the time, longer is not better - shorter, succinct wordings often allows you to make more sense to the judge. --This speech sounds so much better! You sound organized, you have a more consistent rhythm to your speech (no long pauses)....this is a full speaker point higher of a 2AC. --I just would like for us to continue to think about (a) shorter analytics and (b) no long pauses between cards or transitions in flows. --Due to typing, I did miss Niti give the solvency deficit to heg on the CP. I asked her to repeat that at the end of the speech so I could hear it. She did not really have that argument down the way that I had intended, so I discussed with her the argument and had her add it to her 2AC Privatization CP.
 * __Speech Redo from Practice Debate #5 - 2AC - 07/22/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

--Niti had isolated three goals in lab to work on when she is Aff: (1) debating off the flow, (2) better on the line-by-line when answering case, and (3) eventually have a round where she goes for theory in the 2AR. --It is fine to have short case overviews in the 2AC for telling the story of the case and impact framing. I would like for you to take the time to work through the economy advantage overview a bit more. It was very long and pretty wordy. Try to do your overview in half the number of words. Also, stick to the script. You gave the overview that you had written and then talked for equivalently the same amount of time after words off script. --Same is true with the heg overview. --We did a pretty good job signposting on case, but there were not a lot of case arguments. We need to do this more efficiently. Don't repeat the entirety of the arguments. Literally, "on heg...1NC 1...drones lead to more drones prolif"...and "on solvency, 1NC 1 - barriers to implementation..." --I am pretty certain that I was clear that 2AC theory should be no more than three subpoints yesterday in lab. Your Condo block is too long. --Good set of answers to Elections DA. --REDO: I want you to redo the 2AC from this debate. Goals: (1) I want you to get through the case debate in 2 minutes - make your overviews much smaller and more word efficient...signpost more efficiently, (2) have specific answers to the arguments they read - I want an additional argument to the drones turn (pull something from the 1AC as to why drones are good) and I want you to have specific answers to each solvency argument; (3) shorter condo block; (4) a solvency deficit to the CP as to why the CP does not solve heg --I thought you were having some good moments and getting good traction when you were CXing the 2NC. Watch being a little argumentative. Your "questions" were just really long statements that you would tack on a question at the end. --It is good to spend time on the case in the 2AR but all of that should be contextualized as the case vs. the K. I thought we spent a bit too long on the case explanation. --Link turns often don't win you much in a K debate. A good K team will always win some type of link. You may link less than the status quo but you don't link less than the alternative.
 * __Practice Debate #5 - Aff vs. Anja Beth/Isabella - 07/21/2012 - Comments by Tara__ **

__ **Practice Debate #2** __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Clarity is good, speed could improve. If you can talk faster w/o losing clarity you should do so.  2) Recommended Drills: Practice reading at full speed for 10 minutes or more to improve endurance+speed. Practice giving 2ACs on case – try to answer 1nc arguments efficiently and in order. 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Put case first – you have to win it to outweigh their offense.  Do line-by-line – they made a bunch of different solvency arguments; you need to address each specifically.  Perm the counterplan.  You have double turned elections – you cannot say “plan makes Obama win” and “Obama win bad”  Put more answers on the k – talk about why it doesn’t apply to your aff, why the impact is stupid, etc.  4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Evidence in the wrong places – in most situations you need no evidence on case; use the spare time to read more cards on the off-case. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Do clearer impact calc on your advantages in the 2AR to bolster your “case outweighs” arguments.  Try to clean up the K flow – make each individual argument fully then move on, rather than cycling back to re-explain arguemnts you already made.  5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Add clear impact extensions on the advantages to emphasize the 2NR’s concession of them. Try to do line-by line more cleanly on the K to make the holes in the neg’s explanation more obvious.
 * __Practice Debate #1 - Aff vs. Noah/Vivienne - 07/11/2012 - Comments by Connor__ **

__ **Elections Block Extension Speech -07/10/2012 - Comments by Abe:** __ --You're quick and clear. Keep doing speaking drills so that you can keep up a fast pace and get even faster. --Start off with impact calculus and turns case arguments. --You did a good job answering all of the 2AC's arguments and sign-posting. Be sure to extend your 1NC evidence quickly and give reason to prefer it (post-dating, more conclusive, more qualified, etc.). The same applies to the link debate - you are reading the right cards but should also extend your 1NC evidence. Good job outcarding the aff. --Add in some quick analytic evidence indicts - this can be the tiebreaker and judges love evidence indicts. --You didn't quite respond to the "Romney leading on econ" card correctly. Read a card that Obama is leading on the economy, and THEN extend your link and say that the plan would change that because deficit spending is seen as bad for the economy. --The political capital key card isn't relevant to an elections disad (PC is normally about Congress, not an election). --You should point out that the China warming card (Wortzel) contradicts with their 1AC scenario. Concede it and say that's a reason they don't solve but a reason why the DA does because Obama will do diplomacy. --Because the 1NC read an impact that was also a 1AC impact, you should read the CTBT addon so that you have something external. Add it to the end of your speech doc if you're afraid about running out of time.

--You're reading the right cards and have great clarity! You did a good job of giving a diverse 2AC that attacked all the components of the disad. I think you can work on being even faster and will still be clear. --It's not necessary to begin by saying "they say Obama will win but..." - you can just begin by saying "non-unique: Romney will win..." --You can also cut out the explanations of cards after you've read them. Those were good, and would be good 1AR extensions, but they aren't necessary in the 2AC. However, you should add some analytics that make different arguments than your cards. --You can probably highlight down the cards a little more. --You should read a card that economy is critical determinate of the election.
 * __2AC Elections DA Speech - 07/09/2012 - Comments by Abe__: **