ArjGup

__**Arjun Gupta**__ =__2AC Politics Drill - July 12th__=

Comments by Tara
- Good volume – you have a nice command of the room - Good to point out that the shell link card is not specific to Afghanistan - Good diversity of arguments. - Great argument to claim that Afghanistan troop withdrawal now to non-unique the link – be careful with that argument, however. You don’t want to non-unique the internal links to your Aff. - Keep like arguments together – we jumped around a lot. Give all of your non-uniques, then all of your no links/link turns. - Answer the DA as one story – “My 1 – Energy Bill won’t pass now” – avoid answering the DA story card by card

=__2AC Politics Drill - July 14th__=

Comments by Peyton - Good volume and great line by line – very thorough. - Don’t need to tell me there’s an overview necessarily - Don’t need to paraphrase the cards you just read (on the impact overview) - Can signpost more efficiently – so instead of “They said we didn’t have any PC key cards in our 1NC” say “2AC 1 – they say PC not key – 1. Political capital blah blah Xinua news 2. Blah blah” – so highlight which number, and paraphrase their arg more shortly - Good use of your 1NC evidence on the link debate- when answering the withdrawal non unique, use your uniqueness evidence to say why that doesn’t apply, or read a more specific link to the aff (if you have one :/) - When answering no impact – make sure to extend the 1NC impact and not just read new scenarios.

=__Mini Debate #2 - Neg (2N) vs. Emma/Carol__=

Comments by Tate
Be careful about “tag-teaming” in CX. It makes your partner look weak. You did this both when Sebastian was asking questions and answering questions. You should be prepping. --You were easy to follow. Good signposting. --I would love, love, love to see a position overview in the 2NC…preferably an impact calculus but it could be an overview that explains the story of the DA. There needs to be something that serves as a framing device for the judge. This DA is ripe for DA turns back the case. --You chose good 2NC evidence to respond to the 2AC. --I would utilize the 1NC shell evidence more. There was not any extension of 1NC evidence. --Do we have “Afghanistan” specific links? I like your spin off the “even partial withdraw triggers the link”, which is one way to try to spin a specific link story. This would have been helped by having an Afghanistan specific card. --We dropped the non-unique argument that Congress supports ABL funding now. --It is fine to read more impact cards in the 2NC, but remember the 2AC does not indict your impacts. You should first extend the 1NC conceded impacts and then maybe read one more card. In this particular speech, it would have been better to have answered the dropped non-unique argument than additional impact cards. --Re-Do Goals: (1) Answer the non-uniqueness argument, (2) Include a short overview to the position, (3) Extend cards from the 1NC

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

Comments by Tate
-- Good to have a short overview at the top. Make sure you start off all your speeches a bit slowly and then build into your speed. I lost the first few words of your speech. --Yay! An "even if" statement. --It seemed like you did more in this speech to spin a specific link to Afghanistan. Even if you are lacking the "goods" with case specific links, it is good to replace the word "plan" with "Afghanistan" to perceptually give more of a link story.

=__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (1A) vs. Shreyas/Mike -July 21__=

Comments by Tate
--Good volume. That is important for confidence and presence in the round. --I would like to do some more work on clarity with the 1AC. You are pretty clear, but the objective is to be crystal clear. This will help so much with your speaker points. In speaking drills in lab, I want you always using the 1AC. --CX of 1N was okay. You did a good job with probes and follow-ups but the line of questioning seemed a bit scattered. You would ask questions on heg, go to another position, and then come back to heg. Try to look organized even in CX. :) --Good specific explanation of what parts of the Thomason card you meet. Go one step further and explain how plan is peacekeeping. --Good to attack their “limits” impacts. However, you need to couch this as why predictability outweighs…not just why limits is bad. --Don’t forget to extend what your counter-interpretation is and why you meet it. There was not a direct extension. --We need to go faster on case. 1AR is not “Thoughts by Arjun” time. :) You definitely need to invest the time on the case extensions but stick to 1AC/2AC arguments and quickly spin those. --Good to point out that the Neg dropped your first two non-uniques – however, extend those with more sophistication. “Extend 2AC 1 – non-unique – troop withdrawal in 2011…not answered by the block…proves the DA is terminally non-unique. Extend 2aC 2 –non-unique – Iraq troop withdrawal now – not answered by the block – their links are generic – the political capital drainage should be happening now”. --For your redo, let’s card this 1AR!

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

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Make sure to extend the most important arguments from the 1NC, such as the limits standard on T. Doing impact calc was good and you chose the right cards to read, but you need to do more comparisons.

=__Practice Debate #6 - Aff (1A) vs. Anjay/Anjali - July 28__=

Comments by Tate
-Pretty nice reading of the 1AC. We need to work on avoiding reading directly into the laptop. I am not sure if we need to make the font bigger on your screen so you can take a step back or work on your posture. Right now, your words are heading straight into the computer. -Good volume but our clarity was weak at times, even on tags. Make sure we are opening our mouth. :) -Okay order for the 1AR roadmap. It may have been slightly preferable to have had the entirety of all of the case advantages before going to the CP and DA. --Remember, your job on off-case positions is to first extend desirable 2AC arguments and then answers the Neg responses. On the on-case flows, utilize 1NC structure. I know it is confusing. Once I stopped you and you restarted, it got better. --Overall, Topicality was okay. I am glad that you expanded on why you met the second part of the Thomason evidence. I am glad that you also extended what your counter-interpretation was. We need to do more on the impact level – why is predictability better than limits? --Good catch on the mis-speak on the permutation (that Taliban won’t negotiate if we are fighting). I am also glad that you extended the NATO add-on. Make sure to reference by cite and state what the impact is to that add-on…you did do a good job explaining why the CP did not capture the add-on. --I am glad that we carded our 1AR. --I am glad that you extended the Iraq non-unique from the 2AC and pointed out that the original link was generic. --Probably strategic to kick out of the heg DA, especially since that impact take-out also applied to START. However, the 1NR did double-turn on this flow (Plan hurts credibility through premature withdrawal and then new cards as to why heg was bad). - Must do line-by-line off 2AC arguments on the T flow! Got better after I stopped you and restarted you.

=__Practice Debate #8 - Aff (1A) vs. McKay/Sage - July 30__=

Comments by Tate
--Work a bit on clarity on the plan text. --We need to work on posture a bit – we are speaking straight into the computer screen. --Try to take about a minute less of prep for the 1AR. --I thought we were a bit off in this debate compared to past 1ARs that I have seen. You may want to redo this speech just to try to be a bit quicker on the flow. --I am very glad that you read a card in the 1AR. I actually thought you picked the perfect place to read a piece of evidence and the evidence you did read was a great filter for the turn debate on the Hegemony advantage. --Move the discussion of “credibility low now” on the hegemony advantage at the top of that particular case flow. --We are doing a pretty good job extending cards by cite on the case flow. I would like to see more extension of 1AC/2AC evidence, however. --I thought it was fine to kick the terrorism advantage. --We needed more on Topicality. On the “we meet”, why is it enough that you meet the second half of the Thomas on evidence? Also, we have to (repeat: HAVE TO) extend reasons to prefer your counter-interpretation. You extended the counter-interpretation and the reasons why you met your counter-interpretation. You then jumped way down to the reasonability debate – extend some of the 2AC as to why your counter-interpretation is preferable. --We needed a bit more on the CP. --Did we extend a link turn on politics in the 1AR?

=__Rebuttal Redo - 1AR - Practice Debate #8 - July 30__=

Comments by Tate
--Topicality was better but the Reasons to Prefer debate still needs to be stronger. We have the "predictability" standard extended due to the qualifications of your author, but extend some of the other reasons from the 2AC like Aff innovation and topic education. --I am glad that there was a focus on controlling uniqueness on the case flows in the 1AR redo. --I thought we spent too long for a 1AR on the impact calculus on the START DA. It is fine for the 1AR to start the impact calculus but it should not be the overwhelming majority of the time you spend on politics. ---We need to extend more line-by-line on politics. I would like to see a link turn (at least) extended.