Vivienne

--I would have loved your CX of the 1AC to be more about solidify links to your cap argument. Think about how defending hegemony is a tool of the capitalist system. Think about how global warming was created - isn't cap (arguably) the root cause of our global warming/greenhouse emissions? I would have loved to have your CX be more about setting up the argument you are going for. --I know this may be the first time that you have ran a one-off K. I have a few suggestions: (1) The K shell needs to be much longer - too much of the 1NC was case defense that is going to be very irrelevant at the end - you need to add a lot more specific links; (2) Pick and choose your case arguments in ways that will help bolster your final story - think backwards from the 2NR - which case arguments will help you sell your K vs. case story?; (3) You may want to think about putting a few links to the K on the case debate - I just felt that you made the decision to have one offensive argument from beginning to end...your 1NC should reflect that and have a bunch of different tricks/landmines. --I think we need a stronger overview - we were really just repeating words from the first tag in the 1NC. You do an okay job to isolate case specific links at the top but I think we can do more. In a shallow way, use the terms "Next Gen" or "Airport infrastructure" more to make your link explanations sound more specific. Are there cards to read here? I would like to hear why advocating US hegemony props up the capitalist system...reforming within the capitalist system will only increase warming and denies the root cause, etc. --We need to be much stronger on the permutation. This is where you call "BS". Their Aff is the ultimate hegemony - we are going to make it easier for the US to participate in global economic competitiveness - they defend US heg - they reform aviation to "solve" global warming instead of recognizing that it is the root cause of the problem. The perm is laughable...zero parts of the 1AC can truly work with your alternative. You need to slow down a bit and explain this. --I am not sure what happened to the framework debate. If the 1NR is covering that, you need to announce that. --I don't understand the one minute devoted to queer theory. I get how queer theory ties in to capitalism but I am not sure why three cards on this were justified or really relevant. --Overall, good signposting - you were easy to flow. --For 2NR, we needed a better start with the "dropped" vague alt voter. It needed a bit better on word economy and explanation as to why there is no link - explaining what your alt is is probably very helpful in explaining why it is not vague. I don't really think you have a full argument to answer this (you pretty much said "we are not vague" and "reject arg, not the team", which is not a great result for you :) ). --We are about three minutes into the 2NR and there has been zero mention of Aff specific links - no discussion about the hegemony advantage or the plan mechanism. You need to anchor more of your 2NR about why you are winning the K, not just answering 1AR arguments. Explaining your specific link story is part of your winning package. There needs to be a lot more "we are winning" comments vs "they say". You definitely have to answer 1AR arguments but that should be packaged as a sub-story as to why you are winning various parts of the debate. Packaging is half the battle. --Is there anything on case that can help you? Anything to try to mitigate the Heg advantage? --I don't understand some of your framework stuff at the end. You state that they can weigh their impacts but it is about value to life. That should be clearer earlier in the 2NR in the framework debate proper.
 * __Practice Debate #10 - Neg vs. Joann/Kushal - 07/27 - Comments by Tate__**

__Both teams need to be better at paperless. Remember to save your speeches before you end prep time, if possible. __ __1A Comments __ 1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Pretty clear could understand close to every word in the 1AC. Could have a smoother delivery and more enunciation on the text of evidence. Good questions about the alternative to libertarianism---need to push it further, do we overthrow the government? Violently, peacefully, etc? 2) Recommended Drills: Pen drill (talk slowly, DON’T SPREAD, but overenunciate every word, Backward Drill (spread from right to left from the last word in card to the first word in tag,), Spread for 5 minutes overenunciating every syllable 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: You asked goo questions related to evidence, so you were certainly looking at more than the tags. 4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: you sound good on case, but you should not utilize your partner’s help as much, you should know your case as well if not better than your partner. They do have a net benefit to the free market cp, the coercion K! you need to remember that a K can be a net benefit to a CP. You did a good job explaining the warrants of your evidence against the CP, but you need to do a better job connecting the warrants of your evidence to specific internal links from the 1AC. I understand Canadian airline privatization failed, why does that prove next gen privatization will fail? 5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Re-do all of 1AR case debating completely on your own.
 * __Practice Debate #8 - Aff vs Anja Beth/Isabella - 07/25 - Comments by Zane__ **

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Clarity good, speed is fine but could improve. 2) Recommended Drills: 3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Consider reading short cards on the cap impact debate like cap solves war to help develop your arguments there. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">They didn’t drop the heg advantage – answer the 2NC defense and make sure you flow the 2NC more carefully. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">“Uniqueness outweighs the link” needs slightly more explanation – explain how if you win it, the link can only go in one direction. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Use the concession of “our knowledge production is accurate” to frame your other cap answers. More broadly, spend more time on cap – it’s the biggest threat given 2AC coverage and the block extension of it. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Overall work on conciseness of arguments – you need to make the shortest possible form of each arg in the 1AR. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Implement the changes described above.
 * __Practice Debate #6 - Aff vs Joann/Kushal - 07/23/2012 - Comments by Connor__**

-Very minor, but you need structure for the very first card in the 1AC - it's Observation 1. --We need to try to enunciate a bit more with tags - I wrote this 1AC and I had difficulty flowing the 1AC at times. We repeated back over words quite often. I would suggest reading the 1AC 2 or 3 times a day - your ultimate goal is that the 1AC should be delivered error-free. :) --Good volume and projection.  --Some of the same clarity issues were occurring in the 1AR - even with our analyticals, we are repeating back over words quite often. I would like to see you through camp to have some 1AR blocks typed up for key 2Ac arguments that will likely  --Is "no neg fiat" in the 2AC? This is too new of an argument...by reading the CP in the 1NC, they are fiating earlier in the debate.  --You need to directly answer more on point some of the Privatization Solves cards. 2NC reads A LOT of these and you just extended one 2AC card to answer this wall.  --For all future 1ARs, I want you to read 1-2 pieces of evidence. Find key nexus points in the debate (solvency deficits on the CP, uniqueness debates on Elections/Politics are both usually good places). You should think about it this way....the Neg just read 13 minutes worth of cards...is relying on 2AC cards and analyticals enough to beat that back?
 * __Practice Debate #5__ **
 * __Practice Debate #4 - Aff vs. Sehee/Michael - Comments by Tara__ **

__ **Rebuttal Redo from Practice Debate #1 - 07/16/2012 - Comments by Tara** __ --Vivienne redid a 2NR for me that was an extension of Mobility K. Vivienne told me that her judge wanted her to have better framework impact analysis and do some work on the case extension. --Stopped and restarted her immediately to get clarity in line for the first ten cards. --Nice overview - I would like to hear a little bit less in the OV of debate lingo. Allow the judge to visualize the K and the Aff policy in regards to the K. The overview should not focus on what the Aff did not do in the debate (i.e. dropped arguments). Sell me your argument. --Vivienne did a pretty nice job on doing more on the framework debate. I would have liked to have heard more about the Schaeffer 2010 card. That card was extended but give me a sentence or two about specific warrants of that card. --I am not sure I understand at the end of speech what the alternative is. Remember winning an argument is just not answering back what the 2AC says but selling what your position does. Always articulate what the alternative is and then how it functions in the debate. --I would agree that you should go for case defense in this round but how does the case defense play in with your offense? You do a good job talking about why the Aff does not solve for oil and the dropped solvency mechanism cards. Go one more step and talk about how this contrasts with your impact claims - little risk of any advantage of the Aff means that you don't need to win much impact on the K.

1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Clarity fine, could be faster  2) Recommended Drills: Practice reading at full speed for 10 minutes or more to improve endurance+speed. 3) 2NC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Use all your speech time!  Coverage on the K was pretty good – I think you need to do more work explaining the link in the context of the railroads aff, since a lot of your cards are talking about highways and their drawbacks. They make a no link argument at the bottom of the 2AC that I don’t think you explicitly answer. Better line-by-line where you answer all args in order and make it clear what your answering would solve this problem.  Recognizing the dropped solvency double bind was good – to make this even more effective you should briefly explain the warrants for the argument – why does going fast undermine solvency? Why is going slow too late to solve?  4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Good use of cards to develop the K – you could use more evidence on case to fill the remaining time in the 2NC – either expand your solvency arguments or fight back on the economy advantage. 5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: They make the double turn worse with the new 1AR impact turns – you need to recognize this and concede it. This would be a much simpler+easier win than the K.  I’m left sort of unclear about the impact to the K/what I should prioritize – at times you explain it as more of a systemic “loss of liberty” impact and at others as extinction.  5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Concede the elections double turn rather than trying to kick the DA. Pick one K impact to focus on – either liberty or extinction – and then do impact calc based on that choice (either liberty o/w death, or extinction outweighs the aff). Eliminate these democracy arguments at the bottom of the K flow – they have little to do either with the K or the aff’s answers,
 * __Practice Debate #1 - Neg vs Niti/Trisha - 07/11/2012 - Comments by Connor__ **

__ **Elections DA - Block Extension Speeches - 07/10/2012 - Comments by Tara** __ --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. --I am so glad that you had a local overview! I would like to see us structure that overview a bit more - use debate impact calculus lingo, like magnitude, timeframe, and probability. I also would recommend a short description of the "story" of the DA (2-3 sentences) at the top before launching into the impact discussion. --Avoid overviews which is just a pile of cards. The structure I mentioned above would have really helped. I do think the Obama key to economy should be read in the overview since it is a "DA turns case" argument. I think you should have moved the newly introduced CTBT impact scenario to later in the speech - further down on the flow. --Again, nice volume and presence. --We are doing a pretty good job signposting, but I always like the sophomores to be tighter until we get it exact. Reference the 2AC argument by number first and then the label. --Don't forget to discuss/extend the cards in the 1NC shell. Extend the card by cite and use that card to make comparisons to the 2AC answers.

--You have good speed but we want to work on your clarity. This is especially important for the very beginning of your speech. :) Start slowly out of the gates. I want clarity to be a primary goal for you in your first couple of debates - some of this just may be rust. --Although you are not a 2AC, this will apply to you as a 1AR as well - I would highlight some of these cards down even more. 2AC cards, and ESPECIALLY 1AR cards, are usually much shorter....especially uniqueness cards.  --Good volume.  --Good selection of cards/arguments to read to answer the DAs (did not include any of the "klunkers").  --Be a bit more choosy in your analyticals - a lot of these were pretty long and I am not sure you are getting much traction out of these (i.e. the indict to the card that Obama is key to solving warming). It took you a while to get through that analytical...always ask yourself how will this analytical play into how I am going to win the round?
 * __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.