Debate+Comments---Madhu

Round 1---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs Blake & Tyler

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 1NC good – clear and fast Same for 1nr 2) Recommended Drills: Work on increasing speed while maintaining clarity – reading evidence backwards, reading cards for 10 min+ to increase endurance+spead. 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good UQ comparison on ptx – you should take advantage of the Silver evidence more b/c he’s easily the best source in the round for this. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 2---Comments by Nathan Bennett
Aff vs Julian & Shaun

Good job sitting on a key issue for CX Need impact to solvency adv Tell me what to do with CP if ptx links Too much time on CP theory—you are way ahead on s adv Should do u o/w in 1ar Good job going to the points you had based on the 1ar—you really fleshed out warrants in a way that wasn’t done in the rest of the debate

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: get faster while maintaining clarity—really easy to flow though 2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Condo? Were really effeicient at top, probs don’t need to spend as much time on the stimulus debate and on all of these little turns because they are pretty lame Make the arg that what is T changes Space policy? Shouldn’t spend so much on T, good job not wasting time on the plan flaw Need more on politics—get at some of these internal link impact questions earlier because these are the best parts of the da to pick apart

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: very good application of evidence—try to do more of this on the Cp v. case but really good on ptx

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: smart moves all around to go for what you went for—with the exception of the theory on the CP

Round 3---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Neg vs Zach & Elsa

At least at the beginning of the 1NC, you could be a bit clearer when reading the text of evidence. Also when reading dates, you can just say “12” instead of “two-thousand-twelve”. I think it’s awesome that you read authors’ qualifications in the 1NC. You should definitely spend more time on solvency in the 1NC – only reading one card isn’t nearly enough, especially when it’s first in the order.

CX of 2AC: get away from the “you say this, but what about our arg” model of questioning.

1NR: I think you should read some ev for at least one of the central “impact turn case” args – like Russia key to economy in particular. It’s awesome that you said the link independently turns the case, and read ev on it. I thought you did a fantastic job of parsing out the warrants in their uniqueness ev and reading cards on each of them – although this maybe even became a little too much, making your speech slightly top-heavy. Great link distinctions – e.g., “even if the infra itself is popular, paying for it isn’t”, etc. Could have spent a little more time on impact defense at the bottom – primarily by cutting down a little on the uniqueness section.

Round 5---Comments by Robel Worku
Neg vs Nidhi & Ben

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: --i'm pretty sure i've spoken to you about this earlier - structure of the overview both in the 1nr and 2nr were VERY organized and structured. very flowable --very efficient on the oil adv - good taking advantage of a lot of the analytic args you made in the 1nc. most ppl dont do that 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:

Round 6---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Aff vs Stryker-Taylor

• Speaking o Very clear and sharp—but I think you need to work on getting faster—try increasing the pitch of your voice to get a more fluid tempo • 2AC things: o Case  I thought your overview was great—first person I’ve seen at the camp who actually extended their impacts!—but maybe a bit long  You also need to be a bit more specific than “heg solves conflict solves the disad”—draw it to the scenario with RUSSIA itself as opposed to vague allusions  I like the highlighting of conceded impacts at the top too—that’s something I always tried to do—make a big deal about dropped aspects of the 1AC and highlight them  Probably don’t need to make a “block can’t respond if they dropped” arg—if you want to, make it a bit shorter—sounded a bit too 2NR-y  Good coverage and imbedded clash  Something else to consider:  The QE3 CP solves some aspect of your stimulus adv—because that’s what it is—so make sure on the case to extend why INFRASTRUCTURE spending itself is key—helps you with solvency deficits there o CP(s)  For the adv CP—make a permutation: “perm do the plan and any combination of the planks of the CP”—always useful for big CPs that do multiple things  Diversify where you put theory—I love that you have a theory arg on every page—but it shouldn’t always be at the top: • 1) more obvious to the neg, lower chance they’ll forget or mishandle • 2) makes their lives easier by just getting theory out of the way at the top as opposed to interrupting their flow  I’m not sure if your answer to the “move the troops” part of the Adv Cp was as excplicit as your QE3 answers  Also make sure to carve out the distinction between stimulus and infrastructure stimulus o D/A: read terminal impact defense to US/Russia war o K—again, mix up where you put theory—a big conditionality press followed by framework is a lot of analytical theory args in a row—you’re pretty clear, but in other instances that can also be hard on the judge’s flow • 2AR o good impact calc at the top  but I would rephrase some things—1) make a time frame argument about double dip coming now—2) make the reverse argument that we’ve been hot and cold in our relations with Russia for decades but overwhelming US military power has kept conflict from breaking out—you could even say something like “even if prolif occurs, it won’t escalate because of US deterrence”  but warming! Aghadkajdf! o Case—2NR doesn’t make a ridership arg  Need to answer that HSR still uses fossil fuels  Compare internal links to accessing warming o Intrinsicness arg—  Cross apply the conceded interp from states that the judge is the USFG o Elections  I thought the 2AR was better here than I expected—but why on earth isn’t there internal link or impact defense for you to go for in the 2AR? Aff strategy fail. I’m all for going for defense—but only if it’s thorough and attacks all parts of the d/a  You’re just taking a huge risk on the judge not defaulting to the predominant offense/defense paradigm

Round 7---Comments by Garrett Abelkop
Aff vs GR Patrick-Anjay

2AC -Really, really quite good. Fast, efficient, clear, mostly made all the right arguments. -Could have used the Neg’s SQ solves evidence to non-unique the link to their politics disadvantage -More nuanced reasonability argument – not that the Aff “is reasonably topical” but that the Aff “meets a reasonable counter interpretation of the topic” 2AR -Really good, really good, really good -Psychology arguments not the best against this type of capitalism argument

Round 8---July 26th---Comments by Linda Pei
__1N Comments__ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Great job on clarity.

2) Recommended Drills: Just work on speed drills.

3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:
 * 1NC set-up
 * Case debate – good in-depth case debate. 4 minutes of case makes it very hard for the 2AC to deal with. And it’s always good to sprinkle in analytical arguments along with your cards, especially since they were set-up in cross-x.
 * Author qualifications – I also liked how you read qualifications on important cards

4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR:
 * Do a better job of articulating which group will backlash, and why that group is so concerned about deficit spending
 * More emphasis on independents
 * Do more specific comparison on why independents outweigh
 * Answering the link turn on politics
 * No perceived benefits
 * Ports don’t affect most of the population, no trickle down effect
 * There is not enough time between now and the election voting for the positive benefits to materialize – voters will immediately backlash against the deficit spending
 * Impact out your framing issues
 * “Link determines direction of uniqueness” – explain why this is a good model for the judge to evaluate the debate – for example, you could say that uniqueness is inconclusive and changes every day, so it is not a good indicator of who is winning the disadvantage

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:
 * Give your re-do with the above suggestions.


 * Round 9** - **Miles**

2AComments 1)Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: None 2)Recommended Drills: None 3) 2AC—technicalskill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Too much time spent on the case --- you're being tooinefficient, but only in the sense that the 2ac doesn't require the level ofexplanation that you're doing --- save some of that for the 2ar Needed more time on politics 4) Assessuse of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, andcomparison: Could've read a card or two less on cap in the 2ac I know the CP is threatening, but you kind of over-coveredit regardless --- take out 1 or 2 of your weaker solvency deficits like"EIS imprecise" 2AR impact calc was great b/c it was super comparative ---good job using try/die in your favor 5)Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: I thought the 2ar vision was great --- a little less time onimpact calc and a little more on the lbl so you extend more than 1 defensivearg would be ideal 5)Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: See above Your 2ac case redo was great --- way more efficient, butthe judge gets basically the same thing on their flow

Round 10---Comments by Seth Gannon
Neg vs AV Cailin-Rachel

1N Comments

• Is the Russia relations DA impact the same author Allison as the terrorism coming now aff author?

• Qualifications! Nice work.

• Decoupling CP: Doesn’t perm solve bioterror tradeoff? Also, we know they won’t match it, right? Isn’t that why all this money is sitting around now?

• Good 2AC cross-ex on growth and warming.

• Impact calculus! If warming is so bad, it’s worth doing even if we lose a lot of people to transition wars.

• We need to get higher tech on growth causes war. I think K-Waves and upswing wars are more compelling / shorter-term than resource wars in the long run.