BenPac

=__2AC Politics Drills - July 12__=
 * Comments by Peyton**

Good speed/clarity, and good use of analytics Have more diversity in arguments - less Non Unique cards, and use that time to read more diverse link turns, or impact defense Intersperse your analytics with your cards instead of packing them at the top =__Politics DA Block Extension - July 14__=

Comments by Tate
--I am very glad to hear that you have an impact calculus as an overview! You are also using a lot of some of the initial impact calculus theory/buzzwords, which is great. I actually think it was a bit too card heavy. Try to rely on some of your 1NC impact work to solidify magnitude or timeframe. --You, overall, chose well in regards to your Neg responses to 2AC arguments. --Speaking-style wise, I thought you had a nice speed and volume. --I am confused as to your grouping of uniqueness – you answer the #1, which was a uniqueness claim and then grouped #2 and #3. It is often preferable to group the entirety of the uniqueness debate and do “embedded clash” with a uniqueness wall. --You lost me on your analytical after your “top of the docket” card. Analyticals are great but they (a) need to gain you traction on some other argument and (b) be word efficient. I also was confused by the analytical on 2AC 6 dealing with the popularity of the plan. --Although we did a lot of impact work at the top, I thought the speech’s end was very abrupt. You need to do more work on the last impact answer by the Aff.

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Aff (1) vs. Anshuman/Anjali - July 16__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
This speech was strategically good. You knew exactly what to go for. However, you need to extend and debate the UNQ debate. By only going for the link turn, there is no uniqueness for the turn. By the end of the 1AR, you are left with a "no link" defensive, arg. Also, on the ABL DA, you should give reasons why it solves war. Be more comparative and extend the warrants.

=__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (2A) vs.Mike/Shreyas - July 21__=

Comments by Tate
--Good order of roadmap…glad to see case before DAs. --On T, explain how you meet the second half of the Thomason definition. Which actions of plan specifically meet which parts of the Thomason evidence? --This was a rocking 2AC…seriously. You did a great job with time allocation. Speech was offensive and with a diversity of arguments. You also set up lots of reasons to prefer Aff evidence early on in the debate. This will be a hard speech to answer. --I think we need a bit more on Topicality. Set up some reasonability standards and/or reasons why predictability outweighs limits. --I would do something with the impact on politics. If you don’t have time to read an impact take-out, at least make the analytical about how nuclear war --> warming/environmental destruction. --Nice line of questioning for the 2N. You were in control of the CX period. Try to make your questions a bit clearer and more on-point…there were a few times that it took you a while to get to the meat of the question. --It was probably a strategic move to couch your 2AR on the dropped “we meet” argument. However, this needs to be worded a bit differently. Instead of saying that the Neg dropped their violation (which is not true), you need to discuss how they conceded your “we meet”. Just a slight differential in wording. --You need to somehow prove that Arjun did not specifically extend the counter-interpretation. Point the judge to the 1AR argumentation specifically as to where the extension (even if it was implicit) occurred. --Be careful to talk about arguments that are clearly no where in the 1AR…for example, the qualifications of your source. --You need to couch the entirety of this impact discussion in predictability.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Neg (1N) vs. Erik/Anshuman - July 27__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
You don't need to read cards for arguments in the 1NR if the 1NC cards weren't answered. Use that time to extend and explain those cards instead. Your explanations were good once you started to do that.

=__Practice Debate #6 - Aff (2A) vs. Anjay/Anjali - July 28__=

Comments by Tate
-Good order of roadmap with case on top – protect your house. :) -Again, this was a rocking 2AC. However, you are on the precipice of doing some fantastic things here so I am going to push you. I am listing a huge set of detailed nuances. I really think you would benefit by taking some of these small tweaks and changing up your 2AC blocks…hopefully, you can follow this line-by-line. :) //Topicality// – on your “we meet”, you need to add a sentence that explains why you meet the second half of the Thomason card – give specifics from her list. We also need to add an impact discussion at the end – your reasons to prefer are good, but set up a reasonability standard and/or predictability outweighs at the bottom. //Terror Advantage// – good that you are reading new cards (especially the new warrant about COIN troops being unable to capture terrorists). However, you need to utilize 1AC cards more – extend 1-2 cards from the 1AC by cite and state the warrant of those cards (i.e. why COIN fails for CT) //Hegemony Advantage// – I am so glad you read the US cred low now card. However, read this at the top. Before reading it, say “We control uniqueness”. Tricks like that set up a filter for the judge to weigh the advantage. You had good line-by-line here…small tweak: group the 1NC 1 and 2. You answered 1NC 1 and then when you got to 1NC 2, you just cross-applied what you read. Also, when extending the 1AC Innocent 09 evidence, state the reason why he states that COIN troops decrease US heg. Also, I am glad that you read Heg key to solving terror off their Layne impact, but go ahead and extend the 1AC impacts as well (by cite and warrant). //Afghan Instability// – again, the new cards you read here are fine. You want to extend 1AC cards by cite and specific warrant. I would also make an argument here as well that you are controlling uniqueness – status quo = climbing civilian deaths and instability at the same time our troop presence is increasing. //Counterplan// – I did not get your second perm. I did not understand what it was and how it functioned. Good to read the NATO add-on but you don’t have to announce it so substantively. Just say “And, NATO is a DA to the CP” and read the three pieces of evidence. The more you announce it (put shiny lights around it, yell it out, etc), the more likely they will spend a ton of time on it. Put a short Condo block on the CP. I would also rework your “Plan is a prerequisite” – make it have two sub-points: read the card you did as the first subpoint but retag to say “Taliban won’t negotiate if troops present” and then make subpoint b a card that says Taliban won’t come to the table if they think they are winning. You also need to reword your solvency deficit as “Case is a DA to the CP”. //START// – overall, pretty good, However, you need offense. A link turn is much more preferable than your false analytical about it not needing to go through Congress. Make an analytic argument about why you control the biggest internal link to heg. -Dude, you have to flow the 1AR. This is non-negotiable. -Dude, you also have to flow the 2NR. I am going to beat you senseless. --Said this to you last time, you need a brief overview in 2AR. You should at least give the impact filter for the judge – predictability > limits. --You do a good job on the we meet debate in the 2AR – some of that is what needs to be in the 2AC frontline. --You have to answer/address the Negative’s case list in the 2AR. --Can you make reasonability claims in this 2AR? That certainly was not in the 2AC.

=__2AC Redo from Practice Debate #6 - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Better explanation of the "we meet" on Topicality. Eliminate the part that talks about the "longer definition". Just say that we are peacekeeping and intell gathering. --Good to add both a reasonability standard and a predictability > limits argument at the bottom of T. --Wow...the case debate was infinitely better. You were very card heavy the first time around, which is fine. However, this speech you *debated* the case. You utilized 1AC evidence and made arguments against the negative's arguments, as well as read applicable evidence. Case was all-star. --Much better to have a link turn instead of some of the link take-outs from the prior debate. --Great...we diversified our poltiics arguments even more by adding an impact take-out.

=__Practice Debate #8 - Aff (2A) vs. McKay/Sage - July 30__=

Comments by Tate
--I thought you had good use of prep time for the 2A. Although there was prior disclosure, this was a big case debate. Using only 1:00 of prep before the 2AC was an effective use of prep time. --Overall, good 2AC. Definitely saw many of the suggestions we talked about in a prior practice debate/speech redo in this speech. --We need to focus a bit more on our sign-posting. We were grouping arguments as an after-thought. Also, it seemed like some of our case blocks were a bit out of order in the 2AC. Also, avoiding the grouping of like arguments that are not back-to-back on the flow. For example, you grouped the 1 and 4 on the terror advantage. In this case, just answer #1 and when you get to the #4, just cross-apply from above. If these two arguments had been the #1 and #2, grouping would have been fine. --I thought we needed more on the CP. Perhaps adding a short conditionality block? An add-on that the advantage CP does not solve for (i.e. NATO)? --On politics, change up your rhetoric on the 2AC 4 – word this argument as a “no internal link – no spillover” first and then give the warrants that you have now. --You read a link turn about plan being key for Obama to court the base. This is a fine link turn to read IF there are Dems that are not on board with START now. Do any of your “no pass” now cards assume some Dems not on board? --On Topicality, add a bit more to your reasonability standard. Suggestion: competing interpretations bad because it creates a race to the bottom for the most limiting definition. Justifies counter-interpretation of only our Aff. --On case, use the phrase “card is a description of the status quo” when you are making the argument that the cards don’t assume what the world post-plan will look like. --On case, Neg makes the argument that it is not the COIN strategy that is bad…just the fact that we don’t have the resources committed. We need to be answering this better – the Neg does not offer a CP to increase resources for the COIN effort. This cards proves that COIN will continue to fail in the status quo. --I am glad that you have an overview in the 2AR. I am confused, however, as to how the “loose nukes” debate is a win for you. You should always focus on your Aff. I am not sure how you access “loose nukes” – no link turn extended in the 1AR and you kicked out of the terror debate. Let’s tweak this overview. It also needs to be much shorter. I would focus this speech on the 1AR card that was not handled about how presence trumps resolve. If you control enough of the hegemony debate, you win. --Don’t forget to extend that credibility is low now on the hegemony advantage. You want to control uniqueness at the end. --You need to extend cards about why START won’t pass now.