JohDav

__**John Davis**__ =__2AC Politics Drills - July 12__=

Comments by Tate
- Good speed. We do want to work on clarity. Clarity got better at the end, but that may have been because your speed slowed down. We want to work on keeping the speed throughout the speech and increasing clarity. - When answering an off-case position, you want to answer the DA as one whole story. We want to eliminate the “they said X”. It should just be “My 1” - One thing that will help with clarity is to work on posture - I do like the fact that you are indicting some of their evidence with analyticals. It shows that you are thinking. However, one thing we will work on is knowing what arguments are “non-starters”. To say that there card is “generic” is not a round-winner, but is a reason your link turn is preferable to their link. We need to “package” our analyticals in a more strategic way. - I am very glad to see that you had an offensive speech but did not double-turn. I am glad that you decided to have offense on the link level and then just played defense on the impact level.

=__2NC Politics Drill - July 14__= Comments by Peyton Great speed – don’t try to force yourself to go any faster than you can, it’ll make you smoother Good job sufficiently out-carding the 2AC on the Uniqueness debate. Try signposting – so instead of jumping straight in, start with “group the Uniqueness debate” No Need to say “please extend,” polite but inefficient J Start doing some evidence comparison – you’re answering all of the 2AC really well, now it’s time to start setting up why your link makes more sense or is better than the link turn evidence. No “links hard” or “soft” Good author qualification citing on the Impact debate – very high level. Good impact work – you can now start setting up some impact comparisons or standards to evaluate them by (whether those are typical timeframe/probability/magnitude, or something unique like irreversibility) - this shoud go in an impact overview at the beginning of the Disad. Bring up more than you can get through. =__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (2A) vs. Matt/Emma - July 21__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
2AC: This speech was overall good. I would focus on speaking drills that make you faster. Your clarity was fine. The order in the 2AC is incorrect. You should place the case args BEFORE the DAs in the order. The order should be T, CASE (instability and heg), DA1, DA2 I think that you spent too much time on T. Time allocation in the 2AC was a bit off. By putting case on the bottom, you failed get there with enough time (58 seconds). On case, you conceded 2 offensive args. You did a great job using your evidence well and extending the qualifications from your cards. The structure of your answers to the DA was great. You started with impact analysis, unq, link, impact. The only problem here was that you didn’t have much offense. Regardless, you made many diverse, smart, and analytical arguments. 2AR: The speech was good. You saw a strategic advantage and you tried to win on it. Remember, the 2AR is the one speech you can make a case for why you are winning the debate. Start off with impact analysis on how you are going to win this debate. If you are going for the straight turn on politics, you should focus on the impact calculus. Explain why the straight turn outweighs the other DA. This will require you to explain why warming would outweigh the kagan card. On the resolved DA, you should make sure to extend all the warrants. The 2AC was great on this but it was lost by the 2AR. On case, you need to be pulling more of the warrants from your evidence and explaining them in the speeches. The sort of story-telling and argumentation based on “common sense” doesn’t get you far. You should not read new cards in the 2AR You should not finish with a minute remaining. Use all the time you can. 2A flows = satisfactory

=__Practice Debate #4 - Aff (2A) vs. Dhara/Luke - July 25__=

Comments by Tate
--I was actually fairly impressed with this 2AC. There are clear instances of where you have integrated specifics from lab discussion on key arguments. I have suggestions down below about argument specifics, of course, but this should not be seen as an indict of the overall quality of the 2AC. :) --Time allocation was a tad bit off in this speech. I would have liked another answer or two on politics before the timer went off. I think you could have gotten that from a little less on case. It is GREAT to extend cards from the 1AC to “sell” your case story. However, I think you extended every card the 1AC read. :) No need to extend every 1AC card by cite. You can certainly quickly summarize the story at the top of the case flow, but extend 1AC cards by cite on the line-by-line that specifically answer 1NC arguments. --I thought your T arguments rocked! I want to work a little bit with you on how to structure this, but you clearly put a lot of thought into this frontline and used A LOT from lab discussion. --Permute the CP. --You should make a “Case is a disadvantage to the CP” argument. The CP solves NOTHING of the hegemony advantage. They keep COIN troops in Afghanistan. If you win that COIN troops --> failure, you win the case debate. --Make answers as to why the CP links to the DA…negotiating with the Taliban won’t cause Obama to lose pol cap…really? --I would have liked a card to “not at the top of the docket” on START. --Make a “withdrawing troops now in Iraq” argument on the ABL DA…this is a generic link to any troop withdrawal. --Explain why post-dating matters on your uniqueness cards on START. --Start your 2AR with an overview. --Uh, oh…did the 1AR extend the “we meet”s? I don’t think she did. --We also need to work on organization – start speech with an overview (probably why predictability > limits), then the “we meet” debate (although she did not really extend this), your counter-interpretation and why it is better (why they are bad), and the impacts. --No need to continue the silly discussion about dogs down the street. It was confusing enough in the 2NR. :) --Why does the post-date matter? Is your definition of “military presence” from dictionary.com? If so, I would not try to go in a lot on better source/date on your definition. --Impact your “framer’s intent” argument – why is this important? (fyi…it helps your predictability argument).

=__Practice Debate #7 - Neg (1N) vs. Kirby/Shawn (Interlab) - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Slower out of the gates in the 1NC…seriously. You are even going faster than you truly can…let alone allowing the judge to get used to your voice. --Good strategy for 1NC – two net-benefits for the CP is :). --Good coverage on case in the 1NC – thought there were a few places that were a bit repetitive, though. Remember, frontlines = variety and offense. --We need a better story on how Sino control of Afghanistan’s minerals hurts US hegemony. --Good division of the negative block. --Short overview at the top of the CP to explain what the CP does and how it solves the case would be helpful. --Explain why the perm links to the DA. Remember, Lydia kicked out of Minerals. --We need more theory on the “No Neg Fiat” argument. :) Block this out…this is your homework for tonight. :) --Don’t forget about your 1NC evidence on the CP. Extend it and utilize it.

=__Back to Basics Drill: START DA - 2AC - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, very nice job on this frontline. Good diversity of arguments as well as some analytics to start the actual debating of the position. --I would probably put your carded argument about Energy Bill at the top of the docket first and then follow it up with your indict of their Butler card - just switch up your 1 and 2. --Try to make your "prefer our uniqueness" analytical more succinct. --I am a little concerned about our "no pass" debate. We have just the one card on Kyl - does this card say that this mean it does not pass? You need these "one senator" cards to be predictive of the overall vote count/climate.

=﻿__Rebuttal Redo (1NR) from Practice Debate #7 - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Good to have a short overview to the CP - brief explanation of what the CP does and how it solves for the Aff advantages. --We did a much better job explaining why the CP does not link to the DA. --It was better on the Iran Relations Advantage solvency deficit - avoid language that says "extend their evidence". I want you to pour through Aff files to find cards that could be re-tagged that could help this argument. --Good block to "No Neg Fiat". --Better speech...improved. More sophisticated argumentation, more evidence.

=__Practice Debate #8 - Aff (2A) vs. Other Soph Lab - July 30__=

Comments by Luke Hill
Let partner answer questions Impact turning dangerous strategy Why strait turn? Read add ons Make the cp links o disad arguments Plan and noncompetitive parts of cp not a perm

2ar- Overview answer key question of debate Impact calc Build up case impacts, comparative claims about different scenarios Need lots more work on abl da