Sehee

__ **Practice Round #10 - Aff vs. Ruth/Ari - Comments by Peyton - 07/27/2012** __ 2AC - Yay for no prep – the first 2AC I’ve seen that didn’t take any – and since you get 1NC disclosure I definitely think this should be a no prep thing - You all Should jump before you say no prep – just for general annoyance factor - Might want to concede econ defense args to get out of dedev - Nice use of add ons – make sure you’re thinking careful about the strategy behind each one (does the CP solve it? Does it access the politics da impacts? Etc) - More cards on the DeDev debate – analytics, extend 1AC impact ev, and diversity of cards/args in 2ac - Ev comparison for later speeches – 2ac is about getting all your args out there - Theory - More offense to the CP – like terrorism DA I’ve heard etc. - Practice speed- youre a little halting 2AR - Good to start with impact overview - Should put your offense first – so the case, then theirs - Kicking econ would be a smart move but the 2NR didn’t extend the no solvency arguments for the economy – should’ve done this earlier, as is you need to answer the impact - Use up all your time – you run out of steam at1:20 and start doing an underview – should fill your time with greater explanation and analysis of the evidence, comparisons and resolution for why to prefer your cards


 * __Comments Debate #9__**

**__Comments Debate #6__**  **__Practice Debate #4 - Neg vs. Vivienne/Trisha - 07/20 - Comments by Tara__** --When giving our roadmap, we need to specify which case flows. --You probably should have talked to a lab leader before writing the text to the CP. There are major problems with how the CP is written - the CP has to have the USFG give jurisdiction of the airline industry to private companies and give incentives for the private companies to invest in Next Gen. This CP has major theoretical issues and also really can't be done. --We need to work on our clarity (i.e. you are now on the third card of the second off case and I don't know what this off-case is) - there are a few things going on here - (1) You are speaking directly into your laptop - you need to be somewhat turned so your voice does not go straight into the laptop and (2) we need to open our mouth a bit more and (3) go a bit more slowly on the tags. When I had you stop and restart it was much better.--I thought you had to cover a bit too much in the block.--Good to have a counter-interpretation for conditionality.--We need to have a more fully developed theory block on conditionality. We have a lot of answers on this block but the answers need to be more developed. They were too blippy.--Too many of your condo answers were about the K...it needs to be about multiple condo worlds--We need to have an overview on the K. I had Sehee stop and take prep time for this. I was disappointed that there was not an overview since we have gone over this in lab quite a few times. He did write one but the overview was not an explanation of the negative position - it was summarizing the Aff's answers. I re-explained to Sehee what I was looking for in a local overview and had him try it again. :) The overview that was finally given was much better. We do need to work on this - save this overview for future debates and we can continue to work on it.--My biggest sad face is that Sehee was not debating off the flow. He did not even have his flows up with him for the speech. He just had a bunch of K cards and answers on his speech doc. Once I realized this, I asked him to sit down and make sure he had the 2AC flowed correctly first. I then asked him to put his answers in order of the 2AC answers...starting with the framework stuff first. **__If there is anything that I hope was learned from this debate is that we debate off the flow, not the computer.__**--I do appreciate that Sehee was willing to work through some of this stop-and-start with me in the debate. If we had not done this, we would have made strides in our debating. This still needs some work - I think the root is that Sehee needs to have a more complete flow of the 2AC arguments. Certainly, try to flow the 2AC as it is being delivered BUT you have the speech doc. Go back and fill in the holes of your flow while you are prepping. <span style="background-color: #ddd3eb; display: block; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ddd3eb; display: block; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;"> **__Practice Debate #2 - Aff vs. Michael/Abby - 07/13 - Comments by Connor__**1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal:OK speed and clarity – both could improve2) Recommended Drills:Do speed drills (10 min+ of cards @ top speed) and clarity drills (pen in mouth drill etc).3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments:Do line by line on the case – this shouldn’t be just asserting your ev is better – you should extend warrants and explain why the __argument__ in your card defeats theirs.4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison:Don’t read cards on case unless there is a case argument not answered at all by 1AC evidence __and__ your new card answers it – reading case “extensions” is not a substitute for knowing your aff and using the cards you already read.5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR:You need more diverse answers in general, both on the disads and on states – for example, on the CP you should have a perm, some theory arguments, and an extension of the 1AC federal key warrants in addition to the new solvency deficits.The 2AR must have an order and a structure – you can’t just write the args you think are important on a single sheet of paper and talk about them in any order – you must plan this speech on the flows where you have recorded previous speeches, so that the 2AR matches up with previous speeches and the judge can actually follow where you’re winning and losing the debate.5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions:Give the 2AR in a structured manner based on your flows of the 2NR. <span style="background-color: #ddd3eb; display: block; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ddd3eb; display: block; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;"> <span style="background-color: #ddd3eb; display: block; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;"> __**Research Feedback from Set #1 of Wave #1 (evidence due on 07/10 - feedback given on 07/12) - Comments by Tara**__<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">--I am WAY impressed with this first set of cards from you. EVERY card was good and made it into the file. Your cards are of a good length and all advance clear, usable arguments. This rarely happens with an early set of sophomore evidence.--From here on out, I would like for us to spend a bit more time on developing our tags. It is good to have word efficient tags, but you want to make sure that your tags make complete arguments. This is especially true with Aff cards.--I am also attaching our lab Aff file (it is a work in progress, obviously). I want you to see your cards in the file and how I have tagged them.--I also made a couple of minor formatting notes in the comments bubble.--Nice work, Sehee!

__**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 would like to order your extensions a bit differently - when you are answering 2AC #1, the order should be (a) signpost, (b) extension of 1NC card and explanation of it, (c) new cards, (d) indicting Affirmative card. Starting the uniqueness debate with indicting the Affirmative evidence is not controlling. --You have good volume most of the time, but I would like for us to still work on projection at times. --I would like for us to work a bit more clarity - we need to scan and load a bit more effectively - we are going back over and repeating words. --We were doing some signposting but I would like to see more - I would like for you to reference the 2AC argument by number as well as just saying "now, the link debate". --I would like to see us position ourselves a bit differently so we are not speaking directly into the laptop. --I love the fact that your speech was very card intensive. Don't forget to extend and talk about the cards that were read in the 1NC. You should extend all 1NC cards. As I type this, you do a good job extending the global warming impact cards from the 1NC. --Is the "political capital key" card relevant to an elections DA? I think this is a klunker. :)

<span style="background-color: #451e7c; display: block; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;"> Help · About · Blog · [|Pricing] · Privacy · Terms · [|**Support**] · [|**Upgrade**]