Bhattacharyya,+Trisha

--Overall, you did a nice job on the case debate in the 2AC. It was good to start with some framing devices. We were also signposting pretty well. We did drop some 1NC arguments, like the internal link take out to investor confidence. --Slow down during your case overviews. --Utilize your 1AC much more when you are extending the case. --I am glad that you extended the dropped heg advantage - doesn't this implicate the Privatization CP? Would the DOD work with private companies to align our NAS? I don't think so. Also, have a pre-written 2-3 sentence explanation that explains the advantage. You did not get quite as much traction on your explanation of this advantage as you could. --I am glad we have theory on the CP but this was WAY too long. --You probably should have read a theory argument about private actors fiat. This CP is written incorrectly and it is extremely abusive. --You have too much in your first answers on Elections - case outweighs and fiat solves and it is non-intrinsic? All of those are separate answers that should be much more fully developed. A judge will not pull the trigger on these without warrants and some development. --Good diversity of uniqueness cards on the elections DA. --Watch clarity on tags - it was difficult at time to flow you. --In CX, be wary of asking questions you don't know the answer to. You asked the qualifications of Poole and Edwards - they have great quals! I would only ask that question if you know that the quals are terrible. --For the 2AR, I am not really sure that "perf con" is an argument that you can win in many debates. In reality, it is not that much different than conditionality. I would not have had Perf Con be a separate theory argument in this debate. --This is probably for earlier in the debate, but your theory argument would have been much more persuasive if it were about "multiple conditional worlds bad". For example, instead of an interpretation of "Neg can be dispo", it should be that "Neg is allowed one conditional world". Most judges don't see much difference between condo and dispo. Most, if not all, of your arguments are also why dispo is also bad. Your interpretation does not really jive with this. --Please stick to theory blocks that we have written in the lab. I wish that we would have waited to go for theory in the 2AR until we have done more work in the lab on this. I am not convinced that these blocks were written by you and Vivienne while you were here...there were words that you were mispronouncing which does not happen. --I asked Trisha/Vivienne to sit down and not rely on varsity theory blocks for this speech so much. They are going to work together to create a 2AR that is not based on theory blocks that they had in their files.
 * __ Practice Debate #4 - Aff vs. Michael/Sehee - 07/20 - Comments by Tara __**

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Clarity fine, could be faster. Try to add some expression to 1AC by emphasizing words. Use all your time – another “fed key” card or other CP answer would be a good use of the remaining seconds. 2) Recommended Drills: Practice reading at full speed for 10 minutes or more to improve endurance+speed. 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: You’re right to read 1AR cards developing the impact turn on politics if that’s your strategy. That said, you cannot also extend a link turn argument – this is a double turn which the neg can concede as we discussed after the round. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: You are double turning yourself on politics – a link turn and an impact turn means that the plan makes Obama win, which is bad. You need to choose one or the other of these strategies. When you extend case, consider which advantage is your strongest – the neg has some good solvency arguments, but they don’t answer the stimulus advantage which is just based on spending money. Point that out and emphasize the econ advantage. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Shift emphasis to the economy advantage, work on line-by-line and answering each neg argument on each flow, and choose only one type of turn on elections.
 * __ Practice Debate #1 - Aff vs. Noah/Vivienne - 07/11/2012 - Comments by Connor __**

--Students were asked to create a five minute Negative block speech to extend an Obama Good Elections DA. Students were given the 1NC shell and a file of potential cards they could use for their extensions. They used their own 2ACs from the night before as the 2AC to answer when they gave the extension speech. --Nice clarity—want to separate cards/tags more—it all ran together a little too much --Want to contextualize your uniqueness more --Why is your evidence better? What’s wrong with your evidence? --Link—Good job on this—made this clearer --Want to impact this California argument more—why is this a good example? Explain in this --I/L Why is the DA more important for the plan for overall warming efforts? Climate leadership? Why is the plan not Climate leadership? Why will that get turned back by Obama Losing? --Impact-- Do this at top - Do more comparison on some of this stuff? --The NPT/Prolif impact is slightly dicey—makes sure youre ready to go on this if you read this new impact
 * __ Elections Negative Block Extension Speech - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Nate __**

--It is so hard to do this with a laptop but make sure your voice does not go straight into your laptop. --It is great that you have analytical arguments, but really make sure these arguments get you "traction". With each analytical that you make, you need to think about how that will win you the round. --I know you are not a natural 2AC, but this will apply to the 1AR as well. A 2A should not answer each individual argument but the DA story as a whole. Instead of saying "they say....", a 2AC will just say "my 1...my 2". When you are the 1AR, this also holds true. Your job is to extend your arguments against the story of the DA. --A primary goal I want you to have for the camp is word efficiency. :) You do a good job signposting but it takes you a long time to get to your argument. I think you could have done this speech with about 2/3 of the words and make just as many arguments.
 * __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.
 * --**Good volume and clarity.