CarCue

__**Carol Cuello**__ =__2AC Politics Drill - July 12th - Comments by Tara__= - Great volume. - You have the start of a good rhythm to be a nice, fast clear debater. You should really see some progress these four weeks in your speed. - When building up your speed, we want to work on the “scan and load” technique. There were times that you got caught up on a few words. To be super effective at speed reading, your eyes should be scanning and loading a few words in your brain ahead of what you are speaking. - Good variety of uniqueness arguments. - Very well-organized – clear transitions between arguments/cards - Great to have offense, but choose – either read link turns (preferable) or impact turns. Your double-turn creates a new DA against you. I would nix the “Cap and Trade hurts US economy” card.

=__2NC Politics Drill - July 14th__= Comments by Peyton - Good volume and rhythm - your speaking style is really clear and easy to follow - Good use of 1NC evidence and remembering to extend and use that – make sure it’s clear you’re not rereading that evidence(so when you read a card right afterwards, make sure you're breaking up the two arguments) - Impact work was good – I think an impact overview would help - so before you go to the line by line, spend 20-30 seconds comparing the Disad impacts to case impacts and why you should prefer the disad (maybe magnitude/timeframe/probability, you can read your turns case cards here too if you want, etc.) - Signpost - it will help with the structure of your speech (so "2AC 1 - they say Non unique - 1. Extend our 1Nc evidence ... 2. Uniqueness card 3. .... ) - Analytics - You read a lot of great cards, make sure you're pushing it the next step, and making evidence comparisons or intuitive arguments etc. to round out your responses to their argument.

=__Mini-Debate #2 - Aff (1A) vs. Arjun/Sebastian - July 17__=

Comments by Tate
--Even in a practice debate, you should focus on “ethos”, especially in CX. Stand up next to your opponent. :) --Try to be a bit more sophisticated with your CX questions. Asking “What is your internal link on your DA”? makes it sound like you don’t know. When you are asking a question that clarifies an issue, “disguise” it to make it look like you are asking a question for strategy. --Eliminate the “1, 2, 3” before you start the timer. --FANTASTIC that you picked up on the fact that they dropped your non-unique argument on ABL. Impact that a bit more. Why does this drop matter? I would also try to gain more traction with that. --Glad that you carded the 1AR. --I think a bit more is needed on the ABL DA. --You did a great job referring to cards by cite. --Is your politics card a new 1AR argument? --Why should I prefer your uniqueness evidence? --Re-do goals: (1) No “1,2,3” before starting timer, (2) Impact the dropped non-uniqueness argument on ABL, (3) Extend a bit more on ABL (the DA needs about :20 seconds more), (4) Include a reason why you should prefer the Aff uniqueness arguments on the DA

=__Practice Debate #1 - Neg (2N) vs. Matt/Emma - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
CX of 1AC: --Try to remember some of our ethos commentary from our lectures. Look like you are winning! Little tips like eye contact with the judge, starting CX immediately, holding the evidence from the Aff, being positioned in front of the 1AC. --Don’t forget to ask probes. Each 1AC answer should lead to other questions. --Word your questions a little differently – a 1AC will never agree to the question…”doesn’t this take out your entire advantage? 2NC: --Overall, I think we divided the block fairly well. There is a lot of answers to cover on the Resolve DA. --Make sure your roadmap follows your line-by-line. You said you were going to the Resolve DA first. --We need to work on building a podium – we were way too hunched over when we were reading. --We are making good choices in what pieces of evidence to read. --For your redo, I would like to redo this speech. We need to do line-by-line. “Off 2AC 1, my 1”. We did not really answer each 2AC answer in order. We dropped a lot of arguments. 2NR: --Not sure this would have been the 2NR choice I would have made. There is way too many drops on T from the 2AC. *However*, I am glad that (a) you made a choice in the 2NR and (b) that if you collapsed down to T, that you went for it for five minutes. --When you go for T, you don’t need to kick out of DAs. Topicality is a gateway issue so if you go for that, the DAs don’t matter. --This 2NR on Topicality was actually pretty good considering there was not much in the 1NR. --Good to extend the voting issue. --Make sure to reference your 1NC card by cite. --Give a case list. --Great to start the debate about why limits > predictability. More is needed here. --Goals: 1 – Don’t kick out of the DAs in a world that you go for T. 2 – Reference 1NC T cards by cite. 3 – Expand on the limits > predictability debate.

=__Mini-Debate #2 Speech Redo - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
--Good to not have the "1,2,3" before starting the timer :). --Good job impacting why the dropped uniqueness card on ABL matters in the debate! --1ARs sound so much better with evidence - nice job. --Highlight those 1AR cards down, though. That was a long one. --At times, your signposting of 2AC arguments was spot on. Be careful about repeating too much of the tags of 2AC evidence. It is not wrong to do so but it just a time waster. --Good to give arguments to prefer your evidence. However, I am going to ask for another level of sophistication. Why does recency matter?

=__Practice Debate #5 - Neg (2N) vs. Anjay/Anjali - July 27__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
2NC The 2NC was good. You need structure. Start with impact analysis. Talk about why the DA turns the case on magnitude and probability. You should not waste time reading cards that say “warming is anthropogenic” because those were not 2AC args Reading the card “warming causes terrorism” was very good and strategic – you should read a card on warming causing every aff impact. Divide your speech by the impact debate, uniqueness debate, and link debate. Start with your impact work – extend the 1NC ev, extend the warrant, do the impact calculus, and read more cards. Uniqueness debate – identify the weakness in the 2AC cards, extend the 1NC card, and read more ev On the link debate, you shouldn’t spend too much time here because the 2AC didn’t get to this. Don’t read more cards. Simply say that it was conceded and “no new answer in the 1AR” On case, you need to get to this with more time. Your answers should be more comparative. CROSS X – the was very dangerous for the neg. You should not concede that hegemony solves warming. You should deny, deny, deny. There was no 2AC card that made this claim, there is no reason why this is true. You need to make args why hegemony would make modeling unsustainable or would cause an anti-model for the world. 2NR: Good beginning! This speech was very good. The impact calculus was good. There was a bit of overlap between flows throughout your speech. There needs to be more organization. Once you say you are going on the DA, you should stay there and there only. You need to realize that there are now two impacts to the DA: warming and terrorism. Explain why warming is a larger internal link to terrorism and the warrants in your evidence. Extend the uniqueness, the evidence, and the warrants. You should use all of the time.

=__Back to Basics Drill - Negotiate with the Taliban CP - July 28__=


 * Comments by Tate**

--I am sorry that you had to go first but someone had to. You got the same amount of time everyone else did and it was full of excuses. It is important to pay attention in lab. I gave the group 5-10 minutes to get everything together before we started.

=__Back to Basics Drill - Minerals DA - July 30__=

Comments by Tate
--I would have liked to have seen a prepared overview. --Good to extend 1NC evidence against the 2AC 1 and to read more evidence. That is the structure for a block speech - signpost 2AC argument, extend 1NC evidence, and read more cards. --Make sure we have our ears tuned in to comments by lab leaders on prior speeches. There were a few arguments I made after Connor and Dhara went that I would have liked to have seen included (i.e. Sweden irrelevant - does not share a border). --This was so much better than Wednesday. --It is good that you caught a 2AC repeat - 2AC 2 and 5. When on 2ac 5, avoid saying "group this with #2". Just say - "this is the same as 2ac 2...apply my arguments from above".

=__Practice Debate #9 - Neg (1N) vs. Nick/Konstantine - August 01__=

Work on organization in your 2NC - try not to have to go back to flows you've already covered. Also when the aff concedes a disad, you don't need to read more evidence for it. Give an overview on START, make sure to do impact calc. You probably want to go for a disad with an external impact in the 2NR. There wasn't much that was threatening on START, so you could have gone for that.
 * Comments by Jeffrey Xu**