Debate+Comments---Elliot

Round 2---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs Nidhi & Ben

__1AC__ You could be a little clearer, especially at the beginning of the 1AC. By 2 or 3 minutes in you were fairly clear, but I found the first few cards in the 1AC pretty hard to flow. Also when you’re using a portable podium/table-tote, be sure to angle your computer so the screen doesn’t get between your face and the judge.

__CX__ The CX question about other countries’ dependence making the oil dependence impact inevitable – your answer shouldn’t be about other countries modeling the plan (especially because that could undermine your competitiveness impact) – it should just be “the U.S. can’t be drawn into a war over oil if we’re not oil dependent.” I don’t really think your ev supports a modeling impact – and in the CX you should try to avoid getting drawn away from what your ev really says, even when the argument itself is logical.

__1AR__ You have a lot of language that’s just wayyyy too descriptive for the 1AR – “pales in comparison” was the first thing I had on the flow. I thought you were slightly repetitive in certain places on the case – I have the same basic “economic decline causes challengers to rise” argument written down twice in rapid succession on the case. Your basic economy argument is that it’s long-term unsustainable without the plan, but you say on the Keynes good/bad debate that long-term stimulus effects don’t matter as long as you win a short-term stimulus effect – those can’t simultaneously be true. If you’re going to kick out of oil/warming, you should do so by conceding impact defense, because the neg has warming as a potential politics impact. Just conceding “no modeling” doesn’t take out the whole impact, because the neg could say their impact is just based on U.S. regs or green tech which don’t require modeling. On politics, you should definitely extend your uniqueness args if you’re link-turning. In addition to answering their “DA turns the case” arguments, you should make some of your own “case turns/solves the DA” arguments.

Round 3---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Aff vs Taylor & Stryker 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed – you could improve clarity by changing your tone/inflection on tags and cites. You should also try not to double breathe. 2) Recommended Drills: Read 10 min or more of cards every day to improve speed and endurance. 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good use of evidence on politics in the 1AR – uniqueness evidence for the Florida link turn or new link turn cards could be a good addition. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Extend conditionality – all the block says is “they’re all dispo,” so you can make the argument that dispo is condo and briefly extend one of the dropped standards. It’s probably not strategic on case to say “we don’t have a megaregions internal link” and then use your megaregions-ish internal link to answer alt causes. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Extend condo, find a better approach to extending the case, read more politics cards.

Round 5---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs Shaun & Abla

 too fast in the beginnig--sounds like a block  overview needs to be way more specific than "crazy chinese"  shave it down  cx  ask what the world beyond cap loooks like  2AC--should look at me  frame the alt as a question of what the ballot means  2NR  FW: say you allow them their aff and move on—pretty pointless micro debate  need to get to the case--they literally can only go for case outweighs  2NR could be in response to any aff--way too generic  too distinct when reading vs. speaking off top of head--get better at easing hte transition  kick the d/a cleaner  draw everything in impact calc back to the aff--ex: root cause

Round 6---Comments by Jeff Buntin
CX: pursue lines of questioning a little bit more – it was pretty apparent that they had no idea what “substantially more funding” means in the plan, but you didn’t go anywhere with that line of questioning. Also chill out with throwing & catching the timer during CX – you dropped it once and it was kinda jarring… Cut some of the debate jargon out of your questions – “what’s the brink” on nuclear terror would be much better as “how are terrorists going to overcome the thousands of obstacles to obtaining nukes now?”

2NC: Clarity on T at the beginning of the speech was a pretty big issue – I could barely flow you at times.

You should kick out of T-substantial by conceding their argument about how much the plan spends, and making an explicit distinction between that and the CP for the purpose of the link to politics.

2NR: Even if the block double-turn hadn’t happened, going for T would have been a decent option for the 2NR – I thought you were ahead on it after the 1AR.

Your 2NR on T was debated at too abstract a level – more of the speech should be about topic-related substance – there wasn’t really a section of the speech where you gave a caselist of what their interpretation justifies, despite the core impact you went for being about limits. Your “topical version of the aff” doesn’t really do what it needs to, insofar as it doesn’t try to coopt the “security infrastructure” ground – an aff that just built more ports wouldn’t access the kind of debates this aff generates – which is what you should be attempting to do with your “T version of the aff” args.

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Need to just in general not try to go so fast and find a smoother rate at which to speak where you're not straining so much 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) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Need to slow down in the 2nc on the CP --- you can't go full speed on analytics like that Good covg on politics --- read the right amount of cards v. each arg --- good assessment of their strategic value 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good job explaining why the CP solved the aff and using 1ac ev to prove that it's sufficient Needed more time in the 2nr on cap solves war portion--that's the aff's best offense 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: You should be going for the K you want to go for it, not just re-extending the 1nr overview --- you had some solid args you made on the line by line but they weren't flushed out enough b/c of all of the rhetorical posturing at the top 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Go for it more your style Spend way more time on condo ---you basically only extended defense
 * Round 7 - Miles**

Round 9---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs GR Morgan-Brian

Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: fast, clear, and good projection.

Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR:

Econ/Oil---try or die framing makes some sense, but you need to explain it in terms of a solvency deficit---how do you quantify your solvency vs. the CP? Also, spend more time using conceded aff advantages to turn/OW their specific impact scenarios to the DA.

States---Good specific examples (State HSR < Amtrak)

Need better explanation of the perm---say that the fg advocates it but states pay for it.

Really good theory debating---explained the meta-thesis of the logical decision-making arg correctly and efficiently

Elections cut a Silver card that says it’s too early to predict, don’t just assert it.

Round 10---Comments by Rahim Shakoor
Neg vs GR Anjay-Patrick

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Not really needed, he was going for T 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Need to impact limits esp Rowland 84, Was too spread out, need to answer functional limits check, that no aff meets, better on the distinction between the effect of the plan and the effect of regular affs, need to impact FX T more, preempt functional limits and generics check, more time on reasonability 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: