Debate+Comments---Taylor

Round 1---Comments by Nathan Bennett
July 11 - Aff vs Kaycee & Stryker

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good job with 2ac coverage—you want to have more on the CP/Da in the 2ac—your biggest wasted time was both on the case and T—need a lot more efficiency on the case and don’t need to make a bunch of these args on the bottom of T unless you’re actually going to go for them. The exclusion arguments here are pretty lame. You need a lot more logical arguments on Politics that don’t necessarily require cards—things like the plan is minor compared to Health Care or the overall economy would be helpful.

You need more offense against the K—even if the perm solves, the neg is almost always going to win some link to the aff, especially with the Cap K, and you need reasons why an individual movement solves or why Capitalism is the wrong approach. You may end up going for the Perm in the 2ar, but you want to have more of a net benefit to weigh against their offense. The Keynes stuff on the case was pretty useless for the 1nc because they didn’t read an impact so either a) just don’t really spend time on it or b) just go for dedev—which probably gets you massive inroads to the warming impact on the da as well as the cap k—this is something you could have taken a little extra prep to think about before the 2ac, and would have made the block a lot harder and given the 1ar/2ar a lot more strategic options.

The 2ar needs to focus on a solvency deficit the the CP and needs to explain why this o/w or turns the da. You do most of the work on the case assuming that there isn’t a CP that solves a healthy amount of the aff. The work you did on the DA was good, but most if it is fairly new, especially all the prerequisite arguments that you used from the case. Additionally, you need to make sure that you either a) go for all your discourse arguments and defend that mode of thought, or you just go for the case o/w stuff, but you try to do both and it makes it signicantly less effective. The strategy on the CP to just go for a permutation isn’t ideal because they have some conceded link arguments on Politics.

The CX concession of the VTL argument was silly—you shoulve preserved that epesically since that became the focal point of the 2ar. 2) Recommended Drills: try the backwards drill or putting a word between every word drill to take care of some of your stuttering problems.

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Evidence should be used more in the 2ar—picking out reasons from your 2ac cards as to why the USFG is key would be really helpful and explaining your warrants on the warming impact d would have been good because both sides debated the impact with little explanation. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Above 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Focus more on the solvency defecits to the CP in the 2ar and less on the case args that aren’t really relevant by the end of the debate.

- Label offcase -None - Need to read probably another card to answer the perm - You did some pretty solid link work - esp the competitiveness focus -> war Need to be better on why cap destroy the enviro - you kind of assert it and talk about factories, but you need to do some just more in depth analysis since it's a key point of the debate for both teams. Didn't need that really long card that cap = totalitarianism -- could've been better spent on the enviro part of the debate / doing more link work Need to be better on the alt/FW. What does it do? What is my role as a judge. Your answers to FW just weren't that great - come up with an interp "The role of the judge is _" and then some theoretical defenses like it's predictable, germane, etc. As of now you just had a few theory args w/o a coherent explanation of what I should prioritize in my decision making calculus. Need some more impact calc up top --- why is it try or die? More time on the alt Read another card on the perm instead of that ToTo impact Write a FW block
 * Round 2 - Miles**
 * 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:**
 * 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:**

Round 3---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs Julian & Elliot

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Good speed and clarity. 2) Recommended Drills: Read 10 min or more of cards every day to improve speed and endurance. 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Consider reading answers to 1AC states pre-empts in the 1nc so as to reduce the pressure on the block. Definitely read warming defense. Consider focusing more on impact defense on econ, given the 1AC’s focus on developing internal links. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Overall good extension of the K – couple things -Consider putting the new link args on the perm – it’s a logical place b/c they implicitly answer the perm, and it gives me somewhere to put them on my flow. -Explicitly answer “case outweighs” with a comparison of the K impacts to the aff -Improve your answer to “our knowledge production is good” – have a card ready or a clear explanation of the flaws in a capitalist epistemology -The timeframe perm is probably cheating – you should point that out/tell the judge why it should be rejected. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Implement suggestions described above.

Round 4---Comments by Rahim Shakoor
Aff vs Elsa & Zach

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Speed needed 2) Recommended Drills: Efficiency, speed 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Not nearly enough time on case, needs much more time here to win. More offense on T, a bit more variation of arguments on the politics DA. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: needs to read more, diverse arguments on the off-case positions. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Above. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: More in-depth, well warranted limits defense (functional limits, counterinterp checks, states solve). More substantive reasonability claims. Much more work on the K of T and why it outweighs/turns the limits DA.

Round 6---Comments by Ryan Beiermeister
Neg vs Debnil & Madhu

• Speaking style o I thought you were really clear and sounded good (especially on T)—that’s great—often hard to flow • CX: o Say status quo is always an option  QE3 IS a stimulus—it’s just the fed releasing a ton of money into the economy  Solves all of their Keynes warrant o I think the CP text fiats the ability of the states to generate compacts—that’s how you access coordination o Work on the explanation of the kritik—I’m confused by how it’s articulated • **always read impact defense to EVERY part of the 1AC (ex: warming is dropped) • 1NR o Condo  Make sure you’re responding to what the 2AC says—he made “multiple condo worlds bad” args because they’re “contradictory”—so you need to make sure you explain why they don’t contradict, and link all of their offense in the 2AC back to one condo world too  It’s always tempting to just pull your condo blocks but be attentive to what the 2AC says o K  I didn’t think there was much impact calc in the 1NR—I’m not even really sure what the impact is besides allusions to the “war machine”  Try to access the case, make framing arguments about how the judge should evaluate impact claims, turns case argumetns, etc—this should be an important part of your re-do  I’m also a bit confused about how competitive this K is after the 1NR—your answer to “tech good” is something about how the K doesn’t preclude technology—but that seems like a good way the aff can spin a permutation if true—more specific link work would be good:  Link work  I think this 1Nr could have been given to just about any aff on the topic, and if I just heard it in a vacuum I wouldn’t be sure which one. Take examples from the 1AC, come up with a link wall, and enhance the specificity of your args by 1,000%  Alternative!  Where did it go? I have no idea what the alt really is! It died. Bring it back to life.

Round 7---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs GR Naveena-Shireen

2AC: Order was good – I wouldn’t change anything – putting the K on the bottom is probably the right call given the 1NC. States CP – you need to impact your solvency deficits to the states CP – you read a couple cards that are just tagged “the federal government’s key” – key to what? What’s the impact? What part of your aff does the CP not solve? Broadly – you have a lot of places where you make relatively long, wordy analytic arguments – you need to be a little bit clearer when you read those, but even more importantly you should try to break them up into blocks – like, make a central claim and then support it with a couple warrants, with an a-b-c structure – and turn the first couple words of each warrant into a “tag” that the judge can flow.

2AR: Order – I’d put the CP before the disad – you can still win if you undercover the DA but your case is big – but you can’t win if you don’t adequately answer the CP and it ends up solving your case. Gotta connect these morality arguments on the case to a solvency deficit against the CP – your advantage is only relevant in this debate to the extent that the CP doesn’t solve it. Disad – going for a “root cause of war” argument in the abstract isn’t great against a disad with a specific impact unless you make an argument directly connecting your root cause argument to that impact – in this case, you need to connect your “root cause” arg to Iran strikes – might be difficult…if you can’t think of a way to do it, then that should clue you in that you need to re-craft your general approach to answering the DA.

Round 8---Comments by Zane Waxman
Neg vs AV Rebecca-Clara

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: good, fast, could enunciate more and overcome some disruptions to a smooth delivery (near the beginning of the speech or when you switched positions from one off to the next you would stutter a little bit. Work better on organizing case debating in the 1NR---also, use more specific warrants and reference their evidence more (good job in redo of pointing out inconsistencies within the 1AC). Remember to impact each case argument in terms of the RFD or what it means for calculating the advantage/solvency claims of the aff. Better theory arguments in defense of 50 state fiat. Good debating of the counterplan, substantively, though.

Round 9---Comments by Rahim Shakoor
Neg vs AV Tim-Kevin

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Speed 2) Recommended Drills: Get faster 3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Needs to look at the 1AC solvency ev and 2AC cards and use them to show why the mechanism of the CP solves the aff 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: 1NR: I think you got a bit too spread out—needed to isolate and better answer the most serious solvency deficits—better answers on condo (like a counterinterp)—necessary vs sufficient claims, there is not a quantifiable solvency deficit 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Above.

Round 10---Comments by Arjun Vellayappan
Aff vs AV Mike-Sarthak

2A Comments 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: No 2) Recommended Drills: Endurance (read for 10+ minutes) to build speed 3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Good skill and coverage – could use more theory arguments and better critiques of the negative’s arguments (ie. K of Iran strikes impacts and maybe agent CPs – interpassivity) 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: OK use of evidence in 2AC and 2AR but I thought you could have been better at evidence comparison and especially in this debate where the nexus question was what does a piece of 1AC evidence actually say doing things like quoting lines that support your side is key as the 2AR 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Good choices made in the 2AC/2AR in terms of what you had but I thought you could have made some things a bit better which are mentioned below. 6) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: - Use last 50 seconds - Make a bigger deal of the CP not solving the case and how that interacts with coercion - Make fun of coercion - Go for the theory arg about sandbagging - it was conceded