SebHar

= =

=__2ac Politics Drill - July 12__=

Comments by Matt

1. work on your clarity/enunciate more - do the pen drill

2. use the case better --- weigh your advantages vs. the impact to the DA. Use the case to make in-roads into the DA impacts (e.g. use the soft power advantage: say that the plan revitalizes US soft power - this goodwill can translate into multilateral action on solving global warming)

3. work on your impact comparison --- don't just say that "our nuclear war impact is extinction." Instead, you should contrast your impact with the neg's global warming impact

=__Block Politics DA Extension Speech - July 14__=

Comments by Tate
--I am glad that you cross-applied the 1NC uniqueness card. Try to make that cross-application more word efficient – extend card by cite and then the warrant as to why that card is important. --It is more than fine (and usually preferable) to answer the 2AC uniqueness claims with a uniqueness “wall”. Just remember to make sure that you are answering the warrants of 2AC evidence with the evidence that you have chosen. --Good volume. --One speaking thing I really want to work on is eliminating the huge amount of time that exists as you transition from argument to argument. We need to set up a wider podium…there should be little pausing as we move from the flow to the blocks. --It is good to make post-date comparisons, but why is that important? Just stating their cards are old is a non-starter. Why does the post-date matter? (i.e. Aff evidence does not assume new behind-the-door White House negotiations, etc). --Overall, our line-by-line was good. We went in the order of 2AC arguments. --Good choice of evidence – we want to make sure our tags are specific. Some of the tag choices you made on the warming impact cards were too generic – include the reason why warming leads to extinction in your tags. --I would have loved to have seen some type of overview to the DA. We worked on creating an impact calculus overview after the speech.

=__Mini-Debate #2 - Neg (1N) vs. Emma/Carol - July 17__=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, nice speed. I want to work on clarity. During our speaking drill sessions in lab, I would like for you to really, really focus on opening your mouth. :) --Make sure to label your off-case positions…even the first one. --Good to group the uniqueness evidence in the 1NR and answer it as a wall of arguments. Good to extend 1NC uniqueness card! I would make that analytical extension shorter, however. --Please have some type of DA overview – either the “story of the DA” or an impact calculus. --You need to out-card the 2AC. For every card they read, you AT MINIMUM need to read one card. I think a good rule of thumb is 2-3 cards per 2AC card. For example, they read three uniqueness cards in the 2AC…you only read one extension. --You need to read an additional card on whether the plan drains or increases political capital. It is good to extend the 1NC card, but you need to card your response to the 2AC turn. --You were easy to follow. Good sign-posting. --Re-do goals: (1) Short overview, (2) Read one more non-unique and one more link card, (3) Shorten up analyticals. =__Mini-Debate #2 Speech Redo - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
--I am glad that we had an overview in this debate. I think we actually may have had one that was too long based for such a short speech. I would eliminate the "nuclear war not likely" analytical. You are not likely to get much traction out of this argument without a card. --Much, much better on the uniqueness debate. It was much cleaner in regards to organization and it was much more solid since you had more evidence. --Still continue to work on that clarity! It was pretty good but I want us crystal clear. You will want those good speaker points. :) --This was a nice speech redo to see. It was clear to me that you took the comments seriously and worked to give a great redo.

=__Practice Debate #3 - Neg (1N) vs. Dhara/Luke - 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 Combatic Geoblackmail
 * Major points for all: **
 * 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
 * The Sarah Palin award for the words in the English language invented during this round **
 * 1nc –** Keep a better eye on the clock. You shouldn’t lose track of where you are in your speech
 * 1nr** – You should cite your authors better. Saying “if we leave Afghanistan other powers will fill in” and don’t cite an author it has the same relevance as all their analytics you said were moot.

=__Practice Debate #4 - Aff (2A) vs. Mike/Shreyas - July 26__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
You should spend less time on the case in the 2AC. You read too many cards and didn't use your 1AC cards as effectively as you could have. If you spent less time on case you would have been in better shape on the disads. Make sure you or your partner ask the status of the CP before the 2AC. Start off your 2AR with an explanation of your counterinterpretation when the 1AR was light on explanation of what it was. Make sure you're focusing on the most important part of the debate, which was the standards. You had a good sense of what your best argument was and started off with it, but you need to compare your ground standard with their limits standard.

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

Comments by Tate
--I thought this was a good 1NC. Very good coverage of case. Think about what advantages (i.e. US heg) that the CP does not solve for. You may want to cover those advantages a bit more. --Still watch clarity a bit in the 1NC. --Good division of the block. --You did a nice job overall with the case flows that you extended. I worry that this speech was not “offensive” enough. It is certainly important to keep case arguments alive but there needs to be more “offensive punch” to your speech. --Try to make some of your analytics more efficient in the 1NR. --Utilize your 1NC cards more…these should be the foundation of your extensions. Utilize these cards to signpost/structure your arguments…extend cards by cite…flush out key warrants from those cards…and then read extension cards. :)

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

Comments by Chris Mair
In your 2ac, I think you need to work a bit better on time allocation – seems like you got a little bogged down on the case debate. You were a bit repetitive on the case debate, especially on the hegemony flow. Don’t concede that a permutation doesn’t solve or is not competitive in the cross x. Seems like you folded a bit. Even if you do think x argument may not get you far, you never know what the block will or will not do in terms of handling it. It only takes you one second to make a permutation, but takes them longer to answer it. Good use of carded responses with a mixture of analytics. I think you should spend more time on the solvency deficits to the cp, which will come as a byproduct of you not spending as much time as you did on the case debate. There should also be a discussion of the status of the cp (reasons why conditionality is bad).

Good start of the 2ar – I like the prioritization of the impacts, but I might have spent a bit of time playing defense to their abl da and why case would o/w. you need to articulate more why the permutation solves. Just extending is not enough. Good job on the discussion of the politics debate – I think there should be more use of the 1ar evidence.