AnsPar

=__2ac Politics Drill - July 12__=

Comments by Peyton

Good speed and clarity Good argument diversity- but need to be a little more careful about what arguments you're choosing to run. Be careful not to double turn yourself - you've read both a link and an impact turn which mean that if the Negative concedes your uniqueness args and turns on the disad, then it is functionally a new disad against you that you don't have answers to. So in this case you've said that Cap and trade won't pass, Plan makes it pass (boosts Political Capital), and that it passing is bad (because of economy/ and because it solves warming which is good at preventing an ice age). We'll talk about this more in lab - but you should choose to EITHER link turn OR impact turn (in this case I think Link turning is more strategic) Can be more efficient moving between arguments - so instead of "next B." just number your arguments, or say AND or NEXT between them. =__Mini-Debate #1 - Neg (2N) vs. Ben/Nick - July 16__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
The 2NC was good and clear. However, there needed to be more structure in the speech. You needed to start with a concise overview that summarized, comparatively, your impacts v. your opponents' impacts. The overview needed to be in terms of timeframe, probability, and magnitude, where you compared the 1AC impact to the DA. You should start every DA overview with "DA outweighs and turns case...[explanation]" Uniqueness debate: Instead of reading tons of unq cards, you should first compare the 1NC card to 2AC ev. Such analysis can be in terms of qualifications, warrants, or recency. However, make sure to give explanations for your analysis. For example, if quals are more important, explain why. Sign post when you answer certain 2AC args. In other words, improve your line by line to make the speech clear and flowable. You should make offense in the 2AC your priority. In your speech, you failed to address the link turn. To answer this, extend the 1NC link, compare ev, and read more links. Make this the emphasis of your speech.

=__Practice Debate #2 - Neg (2N) vs. Konstantine/Erik - July 21__=

Comments by Chris Mair
Only using two minutes in your 2nc is not strategic, and puts you in a very bad position for a successful 2nr. I would suggest maybe taking a DA flow and spending more time answering the specifics of the case arguments the 2ac is making. Try not to make those underview-ish type arguments after each case. You only have defense in your 2nr – attempt to bring back some hope on the abl da largely because that is really what you are left with. Instead of repeating things you have said in your previous speech, I would work on directly refuting the 1ar, because there is so little articulation done by either side – you aren’t completely dead in this debate because the aff has not been capitalizing on the mistakes made.

=__Practice Debate #3 - Aff (1A) vs. Max/Imanol - July 24__=

Comments by Tate
--Good volume of 1AC. Pretty good clarity. Remember to utilize the 1AC as your material in our daily speaking drills so the delivery of it is perfect and crystal clear.--It is a very small “ethos” comment, but you should try to build a podium and put your papers on there. The “norm” in varsity debate is not too hold the papers with both hands. Laying the papers on top of the podium makes you look more experienced. --I might recommend reading two higher quality, longer advantages than trying to get in three smaller advantages. I thought the cards were overly highlighted. It is better to “sell your story” with two very solid advantages then three advantages that are incomplete. --Don’t forget about the “ethos” tips in CX. We had a lot of down time before CXing Imanol. You all should “converse” during the speech about questions to ask. Be a tiger – be ready to pounce immediately. :) You also needed a few follow-ups. You asked “Has ABL been tested yet?”. Imanol answered “yes” and you just “accepted” that answer. Either (a) you did not know the answer ahead of time or (b) you knew that it had not been tested…if it is (b), you should have probed more.--I think that it is fine to kick out of an advantage in the 1AR. :) When you do, say “Terrorism advantage…not going for it…extend 1NC #2 the Wall Street Journal 2009 evidence…no risk of terrorism”. --You do a good job talking about your Aff in the 1AR. Try to extend 1AC and 2AC cards by cite. I think we spent too long on the case debate. Remember, this is all defense. I would have invested about 2:00 and then gone to the DAs. --We need to extend more cards on the Politics and ABL DA on the line-by-line. It is not enough to win that the case outweighs.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Aff (1A) vs. Ben/Arjun - July 27__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
You should be more efficient in the 1AR. Don't ramble about the same argument for too long. Longer explanations should be saved for the 2AR. Make sure you talk with your partner about which arguments he wants to have to work with in the 2AR. Focus on those arguments in the 1AR, not just whatever happens to be at the top of each flow.

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

Comments by Chris Mair
– In your 2nc, I think you need to frame your arguments a bit better – seems like you are just reading the evidence you think is most applicable to each argument but are not realizing that there are some repetitive arguments that you have already answered. On the politics debate, I think you need to do a better job of indicting their evidence, comparing yours and explaining the warrants with a lot more in-depth articulation. You aren’t really framing any of the debate in an offensive mindset, and much of your arguments are defensive in nature. You need to do impact calculus on both the politics debate as well as the abl da. --2NR: I think you should condense the debate a bit more – I envision a better 2nr consisting of the cp + politics + case. There really isn’t that much work done on either the cp or the politics debate – in essence all you have to win is a risk of the uniqueness debate, plus the simple extension of evidence/articulation of the impact because of the 1ar coverage. Why are you spending so much time on the abl da? You didn’t even get to the cp, which was a large portion of the block splitup.

=__Practice Debate #7- Aff (1A) vs. Nick/Konstantine - July 29__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
-Write out more of the 1ar you seem to be speaking off of the top of your head for a lot of it which slows you down and makes u inefficient. -Start slowly --- Clarity on the plan text is paramount.

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

Comments by Blough

 * Today = history lesson. Turns out the US withdrawing from Vietnam was the sole cause of the Cambodian genocide. My bad.**
 * Today also = English lesion. Apparently the name of the 2nd-ranking Republican in the US Senate is pronounced Jon Kay-why-el (like a resident of Krypton). Or Jon Kill (like a protagonist for a bad SpikeTV show). My bad.**


 * Major points for all:**
 * 1. Citing authors, making warrants without prompting** – Regrettably, these things almost never happened in this round. People need to do more than a) reread tags and b) make stuff up off the top of their heads (the “I don’t have a warrant, I’m making a logical assertion” offender).
 * 2. Word efficiency –** Everyone had a very roundabout way of saying things, with too much colloquial language and too many arguments phrased as questions.
 * 3. Making offense/clash** – Two points here. First, no one is making offensive arguments like link turns, impact turns, or case turns the da/da turns the case points. The Kyl key/not key debate is the biggest problem here, as both sides have different arguments about why he’s essential to the agenda but no one says why that means START is more or less likely to pass post-plan. Second, there’s no clash with regards to whether the CP or the plan is the best scenario – no work was done on outlining who controls the best internal link to solving Afghanistan stability
 * 4. Understanding the ABL DA** – Nobody really understands the link mechanism. The neg thinks that since the plan would provide a lot of money, it means that other squo funding tradeoffs don’t matter. The aff thinks that since they prevent the spending of a lot of money it means that money won’t be spent anywhere else.
 * 5. Rebuttal structure** – Folks decided the forecast called for going for everything.

2nc – Extend your 1nc cards first. There’s no point in saying “cross-apply the argument I just read”. More word efficiency: “we should, ok, be able to say” doesn’t help your argument. “the better for the less chance there is for nuclear war” doesn’t either. “punching Russia in the face” simile was used two times, and two times too many. You say “we’re trying to say” a lot. “I’m making a logical argument” wasn’t true because your sentences weren’t exactly logical or an argument, plus you have cards…you could try using them, you have no merit to your claims if you don’t back them up with evidence.

2nc c-x – 2n, don’t make stuff up! The Cambodian genocide was not DIRECTLY CAUSED by the US withdrawl from Vietnam.

2nr – you don’t need to go for everything. Why go for the CP, 2das, and all of case when you claim to solve all of case and only need one NB to win? You barely got to deal with the ABL.

=**Rebuttal Re-Do --- 1ar --- July 30**= Comments by Matt

--- work on efficiency --- as a way to do this, try to re-do the speech in less time (4:30, 4:00, etc.) --- pretty good speed --- try to find time to read more evidence --- keep working on comparative impact calculus