Kadakia,+Kushal

You did a great job with this first set of evidence. You have A LOT of cards here for the first wave and the cards, overall, are of high quality. I have a few overarching comments: (1) I am just wondering if you are fully using the NDI template. I spent a lot of time formatting your cards. The tag/cite/block headings were not being recognized. (2) Make sure you understand the Inherency story of the 1AC. Some of your negative cards about NextGen failing due to lack of funding is our Inherency story on the Aff. (3) Make sure your cards are actually advancing an argument. I thought there were a few of your cards that were just short FYIs (specifically the CO2 leads to global warming). Overall, A+ job
 * __Research Feedback - 1st set of cards from Wave 1 - Cards due on 07/10 - feedback on 07/13 - Comments by Tara__**

--I had Kushal regive a three-minute portion of his 2AC from the first practice round. I wanted him to focus on more signposting off of the original 1NC case arguments. --Kushal included a separate overview and then a line-by-line of the debate. Overview was good - appropriate length. --Structure was SO much better. This would have been very easy to flow and follow. Having the signposting of both the numbering of 1NC arguments and a brief label (i.e. "Now, line-by-line, 1NC #1 Metaregions") will just ensure the judge is following you and it makes it very difficult for you to drop 1NC arguments. --Nice work - you drastically improved on what I asked. This was an entirely different case debate than yesterday!
 * __Speech Redo - 2AC from Practice Debate #1 - 07/12 - Comments by Tara__**

--Good to start your 2AC with the case --Good volume and speed, but see comment below. --Slow down on your case overview - it was too fast primarily because it was too blippy. You don't need to tagline extend each card at the top. --Redo: I would actually like for you to redo the case extension from the 2AC. You need to go off 1NC arguments. You are just making a dump of arguments. You can do this on the off-case (your job on the off-case is to answer the DA story) but we need to do line-by-line on the case debate. Literally, you start off your speech with a brief case overview if you would like (i.e. key framing questions) and then say "1NC 1 - they say we don't solve megaregions..." and then give your answers. Every answer you give on the case should be tied to a 1NC case argument. I would also like your redo to have a fuller extension of *key* 1AC cards. There needs to be 1-2 sentence explanation as to why those cards are worthy of you discussing them. --I am glad you made a reason why the permutation did not link to the net-benefit (Obama can shift the blame). --Structure your CP theory a bit differently - the subpoints should be (a), (b), (c), not (1), (2), (3), etc. The primary reason is that the theory argument itself is #11 - the reasons 50 state fiat is bad are all subpoints of that #11. --Good diversity of arguments on the CP in the 2AC. --I am glad we had an overview for the 2AR but it was too specific to individual answers the Negative did not handle well. Your overview should be writing the judge's ballot. Go outside "dropped link turn" - talk to me about the impacts of the debate that you are controlling. You need to focus on more key nexus questions, not just mistakes the Negative made on individual arguments. --You did a good job explaining your link turns in the 2AR. --I thought the 2AR needed more cards by cite extended. Judges tend to rely on the list of cites you give them in regards to cards that they want to call for.
 * __Practice Debate #1 - Aff vs. Ari/James - Comments by Tara__**


 * __Elections DA 1NR Activity - 7/10 - Evan__**

A really great speech overall with good time allocation and clarity. Start off with impact calculus and turns case arguments.

Good job doing a quick extension of your 1NC evidence and then reading more cards. Give a reason why post-dating matters (say something like "our ev postdates which matters because public opinions change all the time").

Good job responding to the economy key argument by reading evidence that Obama is winning on it. It's not necessary to describe your evidence/summarize it immediately after you read it - that's something that can wait for the 2NR.

Good job extending the link. Deficit spending argument is good. It's smart that you explain how deficit spending is perceived as bad for the economy. You should still try to do more comparison between deficit/econ internal links to reelection and explain why deficit spending matters more.

You should point out that the China warming card (Wortzel) contradicts with their 1AC scenario. Concede it and say that's a reason they don't solve but a reason why the DA does because Obama will do diplomacy.

Good job reading CTBT - because the 1NC didn't have an external impact to the DA (since warming was a 1AC impact), reading a new impact was very smart and would help you in the 2NR.

The underview is a little unnecessary, however it does have a lot of components that would fit well in an overview.

--Position yourself so you are not speaking directly into the laptop - you want to make sure you are making even pseudo eye contact with the judge. --I am not sure if it is just for this speech, but let's try to break the habit of "3-2-1" countdown before you start the speech. It makes you sound like a novice. :) --What does not make you sound like a novice is your speed and presence! Very nice on both counts. You have very nice speed for an incoming sophomore. You have good volume and intonation. --Let's highlight a few of these cards down a bit. The first card, especially, was pretty lengthy for a 2AC. --You chose the exact right cards to read to answer the DA (i.e. you did not include --Watch your analyticals - do they have warrants. For example, you say no internal link - Obama is not key to global warming and then read the China card - are these two arguments or did you just lengthen the tag? --Be careful about your indicts of their evidence. You are reading some staff writers as well. --I would like to see us sprinkle some of our analyticals in the midst of our evidence - avoid just reading a laundry list at the end. It is difficult to flow and judges will tune out.
 * __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.