Debate+Comments---Jon

**Round 2---Comments by Alex Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: - Need to start slower/go slower on important CP solvency deficit analytics - Make a more concerted effort to enunciate 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) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: - Pretty solid for first 2ac on case; however, a little inefficient. Repeated that you solve jobs without really any warrants. That's probably a result of lack of familiarity with the aff ,but try to make a 'header' for your case arg in the 2ac and then quickly list off your warrants - kinda like implicit clash in 1ar 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: - If you're going to go for a really ev intensive issue in the 2AR like UQ, you should try to make sure you're really answering most of the neg's cards and warrants. Being the 2A means you have time to read all of the neg's evidence, and you should be writing down indicts of it as the debate goes along. Good on econ link turn assessing link v. turn 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: - Need to be a little tighter about answering some of the turns case args that they're making on politics - Romney kills investor confidence, China gets drawn in, etc.

Round 3---Comments by Layne Kirshon
-2nc was good, a bit inefficient at the top - you answered like 3 perms/theory args and just repeated "if win condo reject the arg" - just say once at the top if u win condo all theory irrel and can't advocate perms -the K was too many cards w/unexplained tags w/out much link work - the CX c/a was good, but beyond that your args weren't great -the impact calc was repetitive - you had like 1. extinction ev 2. violence inev 3. RC of war - all were basically just a RC of violence arg -need more time on the perm and this is where the link debate is important -2nr on conditionality was kinda weak - the education DA doesn't answer multiple debates solve, hard debate is good isn't offense bc they make is harder for the neg - you should have just impact turned uncondo w/logic and then played D to fairness -impact calc on ptx was outstanding. -see 1n's comments for general problems w/this DA

Round 4---Comments by Jeff Buntin
Aff vs Abla & Shaun

You should be a lot clearer at the beginning of the 1AC – even at 4 minutes in, you’re still quite unclear – tags and cites are honestly pretty hard to flow, and the text of cards is very hard to make out.

CX: you often cut off questions way before the 2N even finished asking them – it makes it seem like you’re somewhat deliberately stonewalling or wasting the other team’s time.

1AR: gotta answer this theory cheapshot thing Use their “deficits freak out investors” arg as a solvency deficit to the CP Kick out of oil slightly differently – just don’t extend the impact to pivot, but say solvency for that adv is conceded so even if shocks are inev at least you reduce the impact Connect solvo defs to the case more directly Scratch the perm Answer “turns economy” and make your answers to “turns heg” a little bit better Extend jobs as an LT – maybe also extend public not perc

**Round 5---Comments by Alex Miles**
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Same thing I told you last time --- slow down a little bit and enunciate more

2) Recommended Drills: 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Siick 2nc --- dropped science on the case. The only thing is that you need to try a little harder to answer their specific args on the line by line on Keynes bad --- for example, you were great on explaining why Keynes screws investment, but didn't answer the psychology arg which is a framing issue the 2ac made. Just be sure that you are still specifically addressing each of their arguments at least implicitly. A little tighter/more comprehensive analysis on some of your defensive args.

4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Great at flushing out your warrants --- add a few more "even if" statements and pre-empt more of the 2ar avenues and this would've been totally golden.

5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: I really liked that you didn't go for politcs --- allowed your 2nr to have a level of depth combined w/ tech that most don't b/c you also went so deep in the 2nc Have to think what the 2ar avenues will be and you need to close those doors -- the 2 in this debate that you cou'dve seen coming is how their long term internal links interact with your short term DA's and whether heg is external to the economy. It's like impact turning an adv, you have to be sure to answer their orig impact - and in this case, other internal links by explaining why you solve/outweigh them

5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Extend the investment DA at the top of the Keynes flow in the 2nr - it was dropped, so you should frame the debate around it if possible. Explain why econ turns heg and answer the long term internals to the econ not based on stimulus Solid impact calc on why heg turns the DA though

A little more comparison on the UQ debate Maybe kick oil so you have more time to go for substance on the DA as opposed to pure impact calc

Round 6---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs Joel & Mark

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Needs to start out slower and clearer---fast and clear enough but takes a while to adjust to speaking style. More enunciation. Choppiness between words. Respond to paperless problems better—if you skip forward, you don’t need to apologize just scroll back silently and resume speaking. Needed to talk more comparatively on case in the 1AR. What is wrong with the evidence they are citing, pick a few of their cards to indict. Made a strategic choice to rely on a few arguments against elections to get a positive time tradeoff. Needs to work on 1AR efficiency (worked on this in the redo). Also, needed to explain why the link uniqueness arguments disprove the internal link---if transportation bill didn’t cost Obama the election, your plan certainly won’t (integrated this into the 1AR redo effectively)

Round 7---Comments by Connor O'Brien
Neg vs GR Sunny-Alex

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Generally fine. 2) Recommended Drills: Read 10 min or more of cards every day to improve speed and endurance. 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: On T, I think your overview could be slightly longer and include the impact work. I think you should choose a smaller number of impacts (2 is probably good) and follow through more explaining the terminal impact to at least one of them, how it turns the aff offense etc. You can then use/cross-apply this impact work later on the flow. I think it helps to frame effects topicality in terms of limits – if the aff only has to result in topical action, then all anyone has to do is read an add-on about the topic and everything becomes topical. I think you end up framing the violation wrong in cross-x – your argument is that the plan doesn’t directly do anything topical, not that the actions of the bank would ultimately be un-topical. CP stuff is generally good – you should make sure you understand/can explain what the QE plank does and monetary vs fiscal stimulus. You need an answer to the corruption arguments – explain an actual process for choosing infrastructure projects. 4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Generally good – cards on counterplan solvency/its ability to choose projects would help your credibility. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: I think this was the right 2NR choice. Start the speech with impact calc i.e. “Proliferation outweighs the case…” rather than a summary of the disad. Use your Sokolski card to bolster the impact calc and “prolif turns heg” analysis. You still need a more complete explanation of how QE works/solves the case. Explain why new args in the 2AR are bad briefly eg “we predicated our strategy on 1AR coverage” or something similar. Make an issue-specific uniqueness argument on politics to help deal with the thumpers. You need to choose arguments more on case – explain a more limited number of args thoroughly so the 2AR can’t dodge out of them. You also need to make sure you have defense that answers the innovation impact to competitiveness – your analysis there is largely focused on heg. 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Overall strategy was good – implement the changes described above.

Neg – I think the CP could be more strategic. You should either figure out an argument for why you can pick projects as effectively as the infrastructure bank, or take out that plank because it may link to your turns/DAs. Whole rez is sort of stupid/they might meet – another T violation or the K might serve you better. You wrote your cp text wrong – “maintain deficit spending at current levels” means the perm doesn’t increase the deficit.

Round 9---Comments by Garrett Abelkop
Neg vs AV Mike-Sarthak

1AC CX -If there is a terrorist attack coming, why hasn’t the government done anything about it? -What is that? Is it surveillance? What does your plan do? Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of how the grant process works – this is important – more than just the PSGP (AIP, FHWAP, etc.)

2NC -Overall, I thought the 2NC was pretty good – but you were loud and had connections on some bad arguments. -Your counterplan competition argument makes no sense – plan removes the cost share requirement -T argument – when you read the list of things the grants could be used for – “that’s fucking not topical”, first, don’t curse, second, their arg isn’t that preposterous – I think you want to give their arg a little more credit and actually answer it instead of poking fun at it -Need to answer 50 state fiat

2NC CX -Chill out – seemed like you were getting personally offended at times, which is ridiculous

2NR -Generally the 2NR was good – but has a few big problems -Disconnect between your interp as outlined in the overview/and arguments made on the line-by-line – at the top “our interp is solely - roads, airports, rails” – but then later say that you allow ports Aff? -New effects topicality argument makes no sense – “Aff funds PSGP which then invests” – grant process buddy -Label competing interpretations frame as conceded – when it wasn’t

Round 10---Comments by Zane Waxman
Aff vs GR Jack-Jon

Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Keep working on your clarity/enunciation. 1AC needs to start out significantly slower, difficult to adjust to your speaking style immediately. The first 5-10 seconds should transition from slow to fast naturally. When answering cross-ex questions about the 1AC, you should be able to demonstrate an even more encyclopedic knowledge of your evidence, all the warrants and authors associated with them. I would recommend reading through the 1AC and writing/typing out all the warrants and possible applications of particular warrants to neg arguments with your partner. You both brain storm ideas for using different 1AC cards in different ways and develop a common understanding of the aff. 1ARs against the K: First, while you’re prepping you need to identify all of the must-answer arguments/cheapshots (value to life, floating PIK, root cause, etc). Second, narrow your argument selection and prefer depth to breadth. Figure out the core arguments you know the 2AR wants to go for. 1AR needs to be more picky. make some choices. Depth of explanation and warrant diversity are the gold standard (both using a lot of warrants, but also impacting your arguments better and adding comparison). Take Keynes as an example---top level debating goes back through the warrants from the evidence, next level analysis requires historical examples or explanation of the economics behind keynesianism/models that prove it, the next level is explaining why history or economic modeling should be preferred to ideological austerity (or whatever args you wanna make against their keynes bad args). You can only get that level of depth by making strategic choices about which args to extend, which requires vision of where the 2AR wants the debate to go---this requires extensive discussion of the aff and its answers to various position, and more importantly, discussion between the partners in the actual debate. First, you need to win your framework argument---judge should imagine the plan happens---it’s fair because it was the starting point for the debate, predictable source for aff offense, plan = core of aff it can’t be irrelevant Also---extend some substantive framework argument---political/detailed analysis key to actually implementing structural changes like the alt---a McClean type card---once you’ve done framework, you can either start talking about the plan/the aff or talking about the alt, for the purposes of this I’ll say you should start with your aff and then beat the alt. You should focus on developing your economy scenario in relation to the K. First, explaining how econ increases propensity for conflict (Royal evidence, try and use multiple historical examples, not just great depression---do some econ history reading), explain why statistical/historical ev shodld be preferred to K mumbo jumbo. This is where you should do some impact filter debating. Timeframe/specific scenarios/proximate solvency OW root cause. You have to beat the fundamental error replication/root cause warrant of the K. Next, explain why econ collapse massively increases structural violence---the most impoverished people in the squo would have nothing in times of hyperinflation/intense economic strife, they don’t have money to pay for food, or health care to survive winters. That means your aff accesses their impact calculus. Next, explain why your impact scenario accesses the alt---Econ Crisis increases stigmatization and scapegoating---example: we hate immigrants because “they terk er jerrrrbs”. Economic strife will derail any attempt at unity/equality, even if you vote neg. Now you’ve gotten to the alt. You need to explain why it can’t solve your specific internal links, why it can’t solve their impacts, and why it probably makes things worse. In this case---how do we overthrow the capitalist elite? Violently or peacefully? If peacefully, how do we respond to police. If violently, how do we get armed, how do we train ourselves to beat the military, national guard, and police forces that would protect the government/rule of law in response to violent protests. After you’ve proven that the alt itself is infeasible, the question for the judge is, should I affirm a specific action to resolve a scenario for violence, or should I imagine everyone starts sharing everything equally to solve all violence ever. You should explain why pragmatic, concrete changes are preferable to anti-capitalist vision quests. Also, use args against the alt to decrease their impact---most of their criticisms of cap apply entirely to the status quo, the link to the plan doesn’t have a “unique” impact and, if the alt can’t solve any of their impacts, then voting neg only acknowledges that there are a lot of problems with the world, but does noting to fix them.