HebKha

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

Very fast, but should work on clarity (slightly louder might help, and clear breaks between tags/cards – so go slower on tags – or use numbers and really punch them out to make it clear ) Good argument diversity – Good pointing out parts of their cards that are insufficient – Good structure in terms of attacking each part of the disad - but to be more efficient you don’t need to repeat the whole neg argument, you can just make yours (don’t need to cite 1nc #1 etc)

=__2nc Practice Speech - July 14__=

Comments by Matt
say '2ac 1' - instead of repeating the full argument that the other team makes add more uniqueness cardswork on speed/developing more of a rhythm while reading - good clarity, though pretty decent job on impact calculus - re-write your impact comparison to aim for better efficiency

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Hebah/Anjay vs. Mahnvee/Ken - July 17__=

Comments by Layne Kirshon
These general comments apply to everyone. No one made any glaring errors/was unclear – in fact, all of you sounded great! That said, there are some meta-level changes you all should make to be more persuasive/effective --always look at the judge in CX. You’re convincing the judge, not each other, that you are right. Looking at the judge also means you can see their facial expressions/body-language for various arguments --speed is a MEANS not an END. Every speech in this debate ended early! Being fast is a necessary evil in debate because of timed speeches, but if you aren’t filling up your time, be slow. Tripp was one of the best debaters ever and he went barely faster than conversation speed. --Divide up cross-x correctly. This applies to the aff, not the neg, but the 2A was cross-xing the 1N and then you didn’t have questions for the 2N. You need to maximize evry cross-x as it’s a way to interact with the other team’s arguments. Also, you should give the correct cross-x because it maximizes prep time. --Arguments need warrants, not just claims! This in particular applies to the 2NC and 1AR in this debate (the 1NR was actually pretty good about this). While the 1NC/2AC just have to read cards, later speeches require argument DEVELOPMENT. WHY is the airborn laser good, WHY is war with Russia more likely. Overall, good debate. Everyone seemed to have a really good conceptual grasp of the arguments. =__Practice Debate #1 - Neg (2N) vs. Mike/Shreyas - July 20__=

Comments by Jon Blough
Major Suggestions for all: 1. Clash/warrants – Kids could/should be making better use of their evidence 2. Efficiency – I told kids they say “conceded” and “basically” too much and should cut down on time spent referencing other team’s arguments 3. Rebuttal strategy – I encouraged them to focus less on minor points and more on big, round winning arguments (better 3 major arguments than 25 little ones). Writing of rebuttal blocks was encouraged as well Words I didn’t know existed before this round: Fragmentate 1nc 1ac C-X 1ac needs to know his evidence a little better. It gets a bit embarrassing when you can’t explain why a COIN withdrawal is specifically better than other withdrawl strategies. However, the 2n spends too time on this point; this question could have (and probably should have) been resolved in a minute or so. 2nc It takes 12 second for you to reference their first argument before making yours. You could be a bit more efficient. Nonetheless, I liked how specific you were in comparing monetary amounts I like how you more strongly enunciate when you get to tags/cites I also like how you take time to point out flaws in their individual cards Could have done more direct impact comparison 2nc C-X Actually, kids, the Senate has voted 100-0 a few times. Be careful about what you say “never happens 2nr Again, good job pointing out flaws in their evidence (e.g. problems with the Rogers card). However, your refutation of their card is a “what good is this?” question. Instead of phrasing your argument as a question (which is uncertain), bring up an argument that’s better than their card What’s the point of saying “completely conceded” when you really just mean “conceded”? You’re making some terminal impact claims, but they could probably be more cohesive. Make some 2nr blocks so you get a sense of how you want to sum things up in this speech You don’t need the resolved DA. Go for one DA and make comparative impact claims with their 1ac case. Considering there’s bare bones impact defense on their work (that is, when they tried it at all), you’re WAY ahead in this game since you already did a solid job dismantling their case credibility.

=__Mini-Debate #2 Speech Redo (2N) - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
--Remember to start off slowly and build up your speed. :) Much better after I re-started you. --Volume will do wonders for you - it will increase your presence and help your clarity --I would have loved to have a seen some type of overview with this speech...probably a "DA outweighs/turns the case". Set up a filter that you want the judge to evaluate the debate though. Move the "Disad outweighs" discussion you have at the bottom to the top. --Very evidence-intense speech. You do a good job not having pauses as you are transitioning between arguments. --Don't forget to utilize your 1NC shell. Although I am not flowing this speech (typing comments), I did not hear any extension of the 1NC shell.

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

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
Yays for everyone: -Quick, relatively clear delivery all around. -Intelligently discussed – people seem to have some understanding of the issues being discussed. -Specific yays are under each person. Suggestions for everyone: General --- C-x ends when timer ends --- should generally only finish responses if its only a sentence more or so and shouldn’t ask questions. 2nc: You read impact cards that seem repeats of the 1nc --- should probably take that out and instead do some comparative impact calc Good work reading new impacts – however, it might be better to sprinkle them throughout, rather than simply reading them all at the top I think a good way to handle the impact turns is to at the top of them make a quick impac calc arg – something like “Our impacts happen faster than the turns --- the process of development of ABl triggers arms races and miscalculation whereas their ev assumes the actual possession of the weapon being good --- we won’t get there because a nuclear war will extinguish humanity first. “ Nice impact turning their impact turns --- you reading lots of cards and making the DA large I don’t understand what your doing with your numbering --- 13, 14, are going by and I just don’t get why --- you should be framing your args as responses to 2ac args – not just listing off your args. Impact calculus is somewhat messily thrown in there but is good, nice work putting it in at all You keep re-explaining this impact that you already read (russia-china alliance) to answer things --- don’t do that --- you’ve already read it -- - just answer the rest of their args independent of that --- don’t draw attention to the way russia-china alliance turns heg bc it’s money if the 1ar drops it. -Need to be careful to answer their ABL kills heg args and the first 2 defensive args they make --- there’s not much said by you here I think part of the problem is that there isn’t a great amount of clear and direct line by line in the 2nc --- part of this might be because Im typing up comments and flowing simultaneously – but you should work on the clearly moving down the 2ac order and demarcating that from the overview. Look at me during cross-examination. Need to be clearer on the impact to the DA in cross-examination and how it operates. This rant on the terror turn seems unnecessary and takes too long – you should be either reading cards establishing the link (which im not sure there’s ever a card for) or on the impact and why it turns the case or why it outweighs, etc. Or you need to be doing clearer and more comparative impac calc. 2nr – I think you extend too much in terms of offense – you need to pick and choose --- you end up extending lots of different mini offensive arguments but not fully answering all of their args or doing all the impac calculus that’s necessary. Focus on thoroughly winning one offensive arg and then winning defense against their adv. You also should look into getting the punchy start, the “this is how we win” beginning to the 2ar instead of the mini da extension that you do at the top of the 2nr that doesn’t do much for you. Thought this was pretty decent – it just doesn’t do too much to clear up a debate where there’s already just a hodgepodge of args with no clear story told. The way you dealt w/ these args was very similar to the way you did in the 2nc and the 1nr so I wont give any more commentary on how you should be answering some of their args.

=__Practice Debate #4 - Aff (1A) vs. Konstantine/Nick - July 25__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
Yays for all: Everyone’s quick and clear in this debate --- the cross-exs are intelligently debated --- ev comparisons are made – occasionally, excellent impact calculus is introduced --- effectivie line by line seems to be in use by all sides --- was very pleased with everyone’s performance. General suggestions for all: -Almost everyone in this debate needs to be able to speak more confidently and persuasively – try and make contact with your judge --- bring your personality into the debate. -Everyone also needs to be able to articulate the intricacies of their arguments in a quick and clear fashion --- I know this is hard, esp. for sophomores, but being able to efficiency communicate your arg in both c-x and speeches is the next step for all of you. 1A: -your pretty clear and quick --- sometimes, you stumble on tags though, making it difficult to flow when that occurs -your 1ac tags could also be slightly more efficient --- e.g. “Afghani instability’s escalating” instead of “we control uniqueness --- there is a lot of instability and insurgency in Afghanistan now and it’s increasing” -need clearer explanation of counterinsurgency, what it is, why unpopular, why CT different -look at me during cx -you seem to get buried in your computer – try not to speak into it and make contact with judge -Good CX --- may want to move on slightly more quickly from one question to another -Put case on top – prtect the house -Seriously overcover T – both the c-x and the very light 1nr coverage demonstrate that there is zero risk they go for it the 2n isn’t even appearing to flow it --- that should be 20 seconds at the most. -Good 1ar generally -Great timeframe calculus on the ABL DA -I would extend more defense on the ABL DA though or extend this space laser thing -Nice job extending all your impacts --- I would try and make a turns case arg like “central asian nuclear war draws in Russia – turning their abl impact” – “Pakistani nuclear weapons use would irradiate the environment, polluting it and turning their START impact”

=__Practice Debate #6 - Neg (2N) vs. Hebah/Andrew - July 28__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
-Great debate --- comparative, clever C-Xs, the args are well debated, everyone is really familiar with the issues now and I can see improvements in all of you. -Don’t refer to cards by cite and date --- like Stewart 10 --- Not only is the date superfluous but I don’t know what your talking about because it’s hard to get every cite for every card --- refer to it by the tag or the argument involved --- “What’s the wrrnt in this stewart ev you read on the question of Pakistani stability?” or something like that is a better way to frame it. -Make sure you watch the judge. -Don’t try to start off too quickly --- it slows you down over the long term and causes stumbling. -Start slowly and clearly on plan text -Make sure your continuously clear on your tags --- I think you read into your computer a little too much as we discussed earlier, so sometimes I can’t get all of the tag or the cite a suggestion is to angle your computer more to the side. -Make sure you look at me in C-X.. -Make sure you have ur C-X questions are thought out before you give them – prevents these unnecessary delays 1ar: -Good work on some arg son the case flow --- I think however you prioritize some defensive or weaker args at the expense of answering all their offense the priority issues are things like the NATO turn, the refugees into Pakistan turn, etc. which I don’t think you spend all the time you should be on. -You make some clever arguments and strategic concessions but you spend too much time explaning them and doing so inefficiently and repetitively wasing your time --- these things should be one liners -- -for example, “concede the ABL’s already in existence --- proves an arms races should already be occurring” is sufficient to make an argument you spend at least 30 seconds on. -One of the most crucial skill for a 1ar is being insanely word-efficent and the most crucial skill for a 2ar is being really good at taking a sentence or less from the 1ar and turning it into an huge argument that can consume nearly the entire 2ar. -Write it out entirely when an argument is confusing to you or is hard to say like this first argument you make on topicality about the arbitrariness of the definition --- you also need to go the next step and impact that – why does it matter that their definition of what presence means is arbitrary? Why is that bad for the aff, esp. if their ev is quallfiied and contextual? -You need to extend and impact green economy more --- they conceded an add-on with a WARMING impact – make this a huge deal ---r ead cards that are like warming is the only extinction impact or maybe even cards that say warming turns their Das.
 * Yays for all: **
 * General Suggestions for all: **
 * 1ac: **

=__ Back to Basics Drill: START DA Block speech - July 29 __=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, pretty good speech. You did benefit from the comments/frustration aired from the speeches your colleagues gave prior. --Your "will pass" cards are not reponsive to the "top of the docket" 2AC args. --Good use of 1NC evidence. --Signposting was clear - clear numbering and brief labeling of 2AC args. --Good coverage on the Kyl non-uniqueness claim - you solidified the uniqueness for you and then read a Kyl link argument. --A quick impact calc as an overview would have been helpful.

=__**1ar Speech Re-Do --- July 30**__=

Comments by Matt

- pretty good re-do - focus on changing up the tone/volume more - focus on improving the quality of your warrants for your T extension - don't spend time on inefficient overviews - focus on comparative impact calculus

=__Practice Debate #9 - Aff (1A) vs. John/Joel (Junior Lab) - August 01__=

Comments by Tate
--Good speed in the 1AC. At times, your voice trails off and there are some clarity issues. For example, the end of plan and the beginning announcement of the first advantage was lost. Make sure you try to maintain clarity and volume. In our speaking drills, I want you to work on volume and clarity. --Why aren’t we reading the Afghanistan Instability advantage? This is the best advantage…the truth claim to the 1AC. --Don’t ask if START is at the top of the docket. Of course, they will say yes. --I would like for us to redo this 1AR. :) I know this was a big debate, but we got really caught up in some places where we lost a lot of time. --First and foremost, it really hurts you when your partner writes out your speech in places. It took a lot of time for Andrew to bring up his computer and to scroll to where you needed to read. It also hurts your ethos. It also made for very unclear parts of your speech because you “sped” through analyticals way to fast. --Even though this is a big 1AR, I want you to card your redo. --It was good to pick up on places where the Neg dropped args on T. However, you can’t win the debate on reasonability/competing interps bad. You need more on the flow. --Obviously, we need to get to ABL and more on START in the 1AR. --You should write out a 1AR block to the permutation on the off-sets CP. --You should write out a 1AR block to extend the intrinsicness answer on the politics – neg block did not answer this well at all. --Way, way too much time on case. 95% of your arguments were irrelevant in the world of the CP (which is likely what the 2NR will go for). You need to cut back here…a lot.