LukVan

=__**2ac Politics Drill - July 12**__= Comments by Peyton

Good use of distinguishing between arguments - try to keep numbering consistent (so instead of letters stick to numbers of Next/And) Good volume, can work on enunciation a little bit. Good use of impact comparison - but try not to resummarize the argument you've made in this speech - save arguments about why yours outweigh or are better for comparative work in later speeches. Always bring up more than you think you have time for so that you use up all of your time. Good job taking out their impact when going for impact turns.

=__Block Politics DA Extension Speech - July 14__=

Comments by Tate
- I know we are not in an ideal setting here, but we need to make our podium taller. We are bending over too much to read our research. :) We want a straight posture to allow our lungs to take in enough air. - I would love, love, love to have heard some type of overview for the DA. An impact calculus overview here would have been the most appropriate. At the very least, you should start off your speech with a short signpost, like Off 2AC 1, Non-unique…we started immediately with our tag to our first argument.  - Good to set up a “prefer our evidence” filter on the uniqueness debate. We want to work on wording that a bit more strategically but we are on the right track.  - I would really like to work on looking more organized. It sounds silly, but you have papers cross-hatched in three to four ways and every sheet of paper you read is being thrown on the floor when you are done. Next time, we are going to methodically work on organizing your papers in the speech :). - Good volume – this helps with your presence. - Posture better towards the end. - I would like to work on “embedded clash” with you in future speeches/debates. In this speech, it would have been preferable for you to have grouped the 2AC uniqueness debate and provide a “wall” of uniqueness evidence in which your choices of cards are all cards that have built-in answers to 2AC warrants. - It was good that you had impact calc, but saving it to the end means that (a) the judge does not have it as filter to frame your speech and (b) you may not get to all of it. - I had Luke redo the first part of his speech by moving his impact calculus to the top an d “walling” the uniqueness arguments. Much better! We just need to make the impact calc a bit shorter (highlight those cards down!)

= __Practice Debate #1- July 20__ = Comments by Peyton - Speed is good - make sure to maintain clarity - either A drill or over enunciate drill - should set up podium a little higher in general- especially for straight speed speeches like 1AC - Try to cut the random commentary - 1AR can prep more efficiently, but good road map/structure - don't have to say what it sets up "Internal links " -just make arg, but good case grouping/coverage - pick explicit 2AC args for extensions - Be careful about long analogy, What exactly is it saying? - time allocation - there are 2 DA's and you only get to the second with one minute and they spent a lot of time there

=__Practice Debate #2 - Neg (2N) vs. Max/Imanol - July 21__=

Comments by Layne Kirshon
2NC: --Like the 1A, you could afford to slow down. You are trying to go too fast and in the end you become more inefficient and slur your words a bit. The content of your speech overall was fantastic, but stylistic improvements would help --You need to warrant some of your case-extensions more. You are extending the CLAIMS, but not explaining why some of them were true. --You should flow the 2ac… 2NR: --Pick 1 disad --Answer the case more thoroughly/get to it with more time. When you’re there, pick 1 arg on each case flow and barrel into it --Good impact calc!

=__Practice Debate #3 - Aff (1A) vs. Sebastian/Conor - July 24__=

Comments by Jonathan Blough
**1. Rebuttal structure** – The last three speeches were rambling and blippy. I encouraged them to develop more efficient speeches that focus on round-winning arguments **2. Citing evidence** – Cards weren’t cited as well as they could have been (often the reference was just forgotten, humorously after the speaker had criticized the other team for making analytics), and when they were cited people took 10 seconds just to say what the other team’s argument was **3. Making offensive arguments and sounding like you’re making offensive arguments** – No one phrases any good arguments like they’re winning them, and very little of this round consisted of focusing on offense. **4. Be more efficient with your computer** – There were multiple instances where people spent 30 seconds of their speech rummaging through their computer flows and saying nothing Combatic Geoblackmail **1ac c-x** COIN has not been around for a decade. War in Afghanistan yes, COIN no. **1ar –** Don’t phrase arguments as questions, especially when it’s the first thing in your speech. Make your arguments more concise, and condense your speech down to essential arguments…you spend a lot of time making blippy arguments that probably can’t win you the round
 * Major points for all: **
 * The Sarah Palin award for the words in the English language invented during this round **

=__Practice Debate #4 - Neg (2N) vs. Tanner/Lydia - July 25__= Comments by Tate --I don’t understand your beginning line of questioning of the 1AC. That line of questions really only operates in a world where an Aff claims a critical advantage. I am not sure what you were trying to get out of “how can we win the round”? They read an Afghan instability advantage and a hegemony advantage. --Watch jumping in and answering Dhara’s CX questions. You don’t want to make your partner look weak. --This is one of the better line-by-line block speeches I have seen thus far at institute. You do a nice job answering 2AC arguments and extending 1NC case cards. --We extended impact turns to get out of ABL. :( This DA was straight-turned. You made the argument that the ABL --> Missile Defense takes out their advantage because missile defense solves all nuclear wars. Although on surface that is true, it is still an advantage for the Aff that they lead to the ABL system that rids the world of all nuclear weapon threats. --On the CP, explain why the CP is a prerequisite to the advantage areas – COIN fails because we are failing to negotiate with the Taliban/locals. --You should have an overview on politics – at the very least, an overview with an impact calculus. --Don’t forget to extend your 1NC cards on START on the line-by-line to get you a bit more on the flow. --Lost a little bit of the line-by-line on the Politics. Remember to answer ALL of the 2AC arguments (the “not on the top of the docket” and the link turn)…it was great what you were doing with the impact work but you need to protect against 2AC answers as well. --Are we flowing the 1NR? --I am glad that we attempted an overview in the 2NR on T. I think we need to word this a bit better. Start your overview with a description of your interpretation and why the Aff violates. --We have a lot of good arguments in this speech but we were all over the place...try to divide your arguments into five sections: Overview, why they don't meet, their counter-interpretation, why your interpretation is not bad, and the impact debate. --I don't get some of your "silly cases" like George down the street or your dog example. =__Practice Debate #5 - Aff (1A) vs. Max/Imanol__= Comments by Taylor Layton 1AC: Seems like 1ac with Pakistan and terror has a little too similar of advantage ground – worry about some stability CP solving the whole 1ac. 1AR: Treat the theory of the CP as a consult Cp – make args about the immiediacy and certainty of the plan. If impact turning in the 1ar – go much more in by reading a lot of cards. And then do a bunch of impact calculus. Be a little more clear of kicking out of the case (which argument specifically you are conceding, how it takes out the whole flow and any offense, how it takes out other Das or args in the round.)

=__Practice Debate #7 - Aff (1A) vs. DLT lab - July 29__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
1AC: Good speech. Your tags were clear and understandable. You should invest in speaking drills that help you with clarity. There were moments in your speech where I couldn't understand the text of the card. You should strive to emphasize certain words. To try to get through the entire aff, you should either shorten the 1AC or try to get faster. 1AR: T: You need to start with an overview -- reasons why your counter-interprtation is better. You should also answer abuse claims and make arguments why the plan is not abusive/ T is not a voter. Case: Make sure that you extend 1AC evidence. You should try to always be as efficient as possible. When you answer a case arg, you need to also answer the impact of the arg. You need to extend 2AC args and give further explanation. CP: The same comments from the 2AC apply here. You need to impact all of the solvency deficits and explain why the solvency deficits outweigh the DA. START: You need to have an overview that is comparative. If there is a straight turn concession, you need to slow down in this part of the debate and explain the argument. You need to extend warrants and say "no new args in the 2nr" -- you should also make the arg that the straight turn is a DA to the CP and make your impact analysis there.