NicYan

=**__Practice Speech - 2AC on Politics - 07/13__**=

comments by Tate
--Overall, great speed for a debater just finishing their first year. Overall, I thought you had good clarity. You did a pretty good job keeping up with that speed --In regards to speaking, I want to add some pizzazz. :) I would like to increase the intonation and energy level of your speech. Suggestion - circle key words in the cards. This will be a subtle reminder to you vocally punch some of the key words. --I am glad you had a diverse set of uniqueness cards. I also think it is fine to have a "prefer my uniquness set" analytical, but this needs to be much more word efficient. --No need to introduce that you are now reading your link turns. :) (although I am glad that you read them!). You also don't need to summarize your cards at the end. 2AC should get out as many different arguments as possible. --This was a vey offensive speech - you had a diversity of non-unique warrants and deployed both types of link turns that were at your disposal

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Aff (2A) vs. Anshuman/Anjali - July 16__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
2AC: This speech was delivered well. There was offense and defense -- very good. TIX: However, there needs to be a more structure to the speech. Every time you answer a DA, you need to begin with a structure: CASE OUTWEIGHS (timeframe, magnitude, prob) -- make sure to make this comparative IMPACT DEFENSE UNQ ANALYTICS LINK TURNS You spent a bit too much time on UNQ. Choose 2 or 3 of the best cards and point out the weaknesses of the 1NC unq cards. You should invest this time in offense.

ABL DA point out the weakness in the DA. Point out that there is no terminal impact to the DA. Read more impact turns.

=__Practice Debate #1 - July 20__= Comments by Peyton - In your roadmap you don't need to tell me what you're doing just what flows - good analysis - but need to be clear if this is answer to adv or DA - try to use line by line - good args but weird phrasing - like "here are my warrants" "apply analytic to all their impacts" "circle this" - things we'd do other wise. Should be more techy -- Signposting would be awesome (so off of 2AC numbers) - Try not to look like you're tooling your 1NR - Go for less and maybe answer in more detail - In 2NR you don't need to kick T again or even go to the flow - Efficiency would help a lot - Don't declare things the other team said to be totally defeated or irrelevant - it's rarely true and if it is the judge will figure that out. - Don't need to read new hege impact in 2NR - if you want it it should be in the 2NC, but since it's the case impact and there are impacts in the 1NC you can just use those. - Try to pick one disad to go for, and do good impact comparison work and framing. =__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (2A) vs. Anshuman/Erik - July 21__=

Comments by Chris Mair
Good strategic concessions – try not to use phrases like “extend all our impacts from that”, it just slows you down and doesn’t advance any argumentation because you are not articulating the warrants in the evidence. Try to make some spin out of the 1ar, because extending straight out args that were made in the 2ac but not in the 1ar doesn’t really get you far. Look at what the 2nr has as a winning option, and spend the most time on this. In the instance of this round, I would spend more time on the internal links to heg and why the propensity of this is greater than the no brink args the 2nr is extending.

=__Practice Debate #4 - Neg (2N) vs. Hebah/Andrew - 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. 2N: -Look at me during c-x -ask questions more loudly/with more confidence--your questions are good, speak up! -Don’t need to re-explain DA at the top so much as do impac calc – For example, “T/f --- any delay in the passage of the bill triggers a decline in Russian relations whereas afghani instability would take years to infect Pakistan blah blbah balh” -You need to answer their last analytic link defense on pltx --- explain the importance of pol cap and why the plan is unpopular -I also think you don’t really answer a uniqueness takeout --- read some cards on START passing – answer the wrrnts and the ev comparison the 2ac does, it’s something like “Prefer ourev --- cites newer wrrnts our ev says 1 republican alone is on board and our ev Cites Durbin -- majority whip” -I would explain the politics impact more clearly, have a way of turning the case, and maybe read more impacts -I would also consid -Again on ABL, impac calc needs to be in there, preferably at the top --- have a way of turning the case. -Read more impacts to help deal with space turn --- like the space mil turn, etc. -Great t/f distinction between impact turn and the impact. -Don’t give me an under-view at the bottom --- read some more cards. -Good responses in c-x – again eye contact and speak loudly -Real good 2nr --- you really stepped up your attempts to communicate persuasively with the judge and made some smart args --- suggestions for the 2nr: a. Put your offense on the top --- it’s more important to win the DA because that can always outweigh the case b. Be a little more efficient on case -- -writing more out may help you go more quickly as well as more efficiently c. I would frame your args more offensively the interventionism turn on heg doesn’t just “take out their impacts” --- it proves hegemony causes MORE war d. I would extend more of your offense that’s like “withdrawal is seen as weakeness” and “deadlines embolden Taliban” e. Need to do impac calc on top of the START DA --- your doing a good job on the line by line – however at the top something like “War doenst cause extinction because MAD prevents escalation and people in isolated areas survive nuclear warfare--- only environmental degredation accesses human annihilation which US-Russian relations resolve” – you know, lots more impac calc like that can really clinch you the dbate. -think you should just kick ABL near the top --- there’s really no reason to go for it.

=__Practice Debate #7 - Neg (1N) vs. Erik/Anshuman - July 29__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
-You need to take less in the 1nr --- One DA or a CP and T or just T would be my recommendation. -When going for Topicality, make sure to have a whole spiel where you do impact calculus. Why is one standard more important than another? Compare say limits with their aff ground argument.

=__Back to Basics Drill: Topicality - July 31__=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, I thought this was a nice extension on Topicality. In a perfect world, this Topicality extension would be more evidence, but I understand we do with what we have. --When reading prepared blocks, you have to be more aware of making sure your arguments are being stated clearly and distinctly. It was hard to distinguish between arguments - this may be due to volume and some lack of intonation. Work on being a bit more distinguishing between arguments. --Remember to have a brief overview! --Good to have a case list but make sure your case list is indicative of what would be true Affs under your cases - drones is not topical under your interpretation. --Good to have a topical version of the Aff but give that a bit more detail.

=__Practice Debate #9 - Aff (1A) vs. Mahnvee/Carol - August 01__=

Be more efficient on the case. It was good that you did some evidence comparison, but your time allocation suffered somewhat because your explanations were too long. You need to have less wordy arguments in the 1AR. Most of your arguments on START in the 1AR were new. You should focus more on extending the offense you did have such as the impact turn.
 * Comments by Jeffrey Xu**