ImaAve

__**Imanol Avendano**__ =__2AC Politics Drill - July 12th__=

Comments by Tate
- Overall, your clarity was pretty good. When “starting out of the gate”, slow down a little bit. It is good to build in to your speed so the judge does not lose the first few words of the first tag. You have good speed for a debater of your experience. We do want to focus on clarity. - Great volume. - Good posture (sounds lame but this will be important as we continue to build your speed). - One “clarity’ drill I want you to work on is circling key words in pieces of evidence – this will be a reminder for you to vocally “punch” key words. If you are a 1A, do this with the 1AC. If you are a 2A, do this with some of your key 2AC blocks. - Yay! We did a good job with two key parts of a great 2AC – offense and variety. You had solid link turns (and no impact turns :)) and read a great diversity of uniqueness warrants. - I would like to see some analytical work.

=__2NC Politics Drill - July 15__=

Comments by Peyton
- Good clarity and card comparison/qualifications debate – I think you can take it a step further - Why is it important that they’re not qualified and what pieces do you have that are qualified? Your analytics are really good, but you can work on making them more offensively worded and efficient. - I think you should do an Impact overview before going into the line by line - so starting your speech with around 20 seconds about - Signpost – instead of "Answering their Roberts Evidence" - say "2AC 3 - they say link turn - 1. Prefer our evidence - theirs is unqualified ... etcetera). - Make sure you're reading cards to answer their arguments, and not just analytics about their evidence. Those are great, but don't get you as far in the long run, and are much better when coupled with cards. - Always bring up more than you think you'll have time to read.

=__Speech Redo from Mini-Debate #2 (1NR) - July 19__=

Comments by Tate
--I was glad to see that you were extending cards from the 1NC shell by cite. It was especially good to use that as the filter or the starting point on the uniqueness debate before reading new evidence. --Although I did not see the debate, I did pay attention to the "lengthy analytical" comment that the RA made. It seemed like your analyticals were short and efficient, but still gave a punch. --Make sure you include some type of position overview when you are extending a DA. --You need to read 1-2 cards on the link turn. Your analyticals were pretty solid but you need to make sure to have evidence in play. --You also need to do more work on the impact level. If it is conceded in the 2AC, you should at least extend the 1NC cards by cite to extend the impact story.

=__Practice Debate #1 - Neg (1N) vs. Anjay/Anjali - July 20__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Intersperse your analytics with your carded responses on case instead of putting all the analytics at the end. This makes it much easier to flow them. Try to work on not taking prep for the 1NR. An underview is not necessary. Do more evidence comparisons on the impact turn debate on the ABL disad. You're reading the right cards to answer stuff like the space lasers turn, but you need to explain why to prefer your evidence. = = =__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (2A) vs. Dhara/Luke - July 21__=

Comments by Layne Kirshon
2AC: --Use embedded clash. You don’t have to say “they say x but y” – if you just make the argument it will save you a ton of time --Put T/case on top --Speak from your diaphragm, not your throat. It will make you project more/sound more persuasive --Good, clear, crisp speaking-style overall. --Let the 1A do all of the 1N cross x unless it’s absolutely necessary 2AR: --Choose choose choose! You should pick 1 of your advantages and do robust I calc about why it outweighs/turns the DA. Then pick 1 or 2 args on the DA to reduce the risk significantly. --Sound like you’re winning! You had all the args but you didn’t have the ethos. Pretend you are Seth.

=__Practice Debate #3 - Neg (2N) vs. Erik/Anshuman - July 24__=

Comments by Tate
--Sorry if we were confusing about the road map order. For the 1N, just state the number of off-case (which goes first) and then the case advantages. --1NC was good…nice diversity of case arguments on all of the case advantages. --I would like to see an overview in the 1NR on your disadvantages – either an overview that explains the story of the DA and/or an impact calculus overview. --You have chosen good cards to read, but I want your rebuttal redo to be line-by-line. “On 2AC 1, they say internal link assumes prior conflict, my 1…” --I don’t understand what is going on with the ABL DA???? You extended some 2AC cards but it does not appear that you are extending the double-turn. --I would have just gone for one of the DAs, not both. This was too much to cover in the 1NR. Again, there is more to “winning a DA” then answering 2AC arguments. You need to win your story…overview, answering 2AC arguments, extending the shell, impact calculus, etc. --We need to be much tighter on the line-by-line in the 1NR. Every 2AC argument needs to be answered on positions that you are going for.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Neg (1N) vs. Dhara\/Luke__=

Comments by Taylor Layton
1NC: Highlight 1nc link cards down a little bit more – they are usually more of throwaways with specific links coming in the block Don’t reread 1ac impacts like terrorism on the START DA – just say the impacts turn case Try not to yell 2NC/1NR: 2nc work on your numbering and lettering – it can help but if it’s too excessive it’s confusing Look at your highlighting too. Extend dropped case arguments quickly – explain the impact and the warrant in a sentence each and move on. When doing cite comparisons make sure to explain the impact – ie prefer our ev it’s the congressional budget office which means it’s more qualified and bipartisan take on our budget problems.