AndSpo

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

Good use of impact calculus – maybe fill out the warrants more Very good analytics- can be more word efficient so that you can read more cards to back them up Need more offense – reading cards for your link turns, or stick to link defense and read impact turns A little more structure to your analytics and mixing them up with cards will make them easier to flow – so make the uniqueness arugments first, then the links etcetera, and front load them with what your argument is (ie. No impact – fears of climate change have been around for decades, or whatever the argument is)

=__Block Politics DA Extension Speech - July 14__=

Comments by Tate
--I am so glad that you decided to have an impact calculus at the top of the speech. However, we want to work on making this much more nuanced. You are using some of the buzzwords but we want to have clearer warrants. However, we are on the right track! --Good volume and you kept up the speed pretty well. --You, overall, did a pretty good job with the line-by-line. Remember to signpost the 2AC argument before you start giving your answers (not after :) ). --Cards, overall, were good responsive choices to the 2AC arguments.  --Don’t forget to utilize your 1NC shell strategically! You should be extending cards from the shell to assist with beating back 2AC arguments. You did this to some degree with the CSM uniqueness card. You are extending cards, but do a bit more than just summarize what the card says.  --I think you should work on “embedded clash” a bit more. This will be a term that we will definitely be talking more with in lab. For example, you can group the entirety of the uniqueness debate and answer it instead of answering each uniqueness cards separately. You “embed” the clash by making sure your “uniqueness wall” has answers to the 2AC uniqueness warrants. You will save a lot of time this way. I had Andrew redo the first minute of his speech to do some embedded clash on the 2AC uniqueness wall instead of answering each card/warrant independently with a different sign post. He did a great job! Very efficient! --I was impressed that you did a pretty good job keeping up your speed from start to finish.

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Aff vs. Kontstantie/Fri - July16__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Team Comments: Aff: Good cross-x questions, just need to turn these into arguments in the 2AC. Put more varied arguments, particularly offense, in the 2AC. Do impact calc based on the 1AC. Good on pointing out how the neg cards don't answer the specifics of your arguments.

=__Practice Debate #1 - Neg (1N) vs. Shreyas/Mike - 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 1nc starts off very loud and probably too fast. Start slower, pick up speed. You should block all your on-case answers because almost every other word you say when you’re coming up with arguments on the spot is “uh”. 1nc C-X 1ac needs to brush up on his evidence. If you’re going to raise your voice and act like you know everything in cross-x, it’s probably best not to say things like “COIN does not engage in combat” 1nr You say “we turn hegemony and they can’t solve, they need resolve” but you never give us a warrant for that. Reference specific parts of your cards. Good job pointing out specific flaws in their case cards. Turn it into offense; instead of saying “they don’t say this”, point out a card you have that is enhanced by this issue. =__Practice Debate #3 - Neg (1N) vs. Fri/Ken - 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: 1nc: Was there some kind of literal tag teaming going on? Why did the 2n sit down and the 1n stand up and cross-ex 2 minutes in? Not that important though. You’re very clear and not really slow – maybe some of your cards are overhighlighted? You should be getting through more off I think than you are. 1nr – If your gonna win this mini resolve DA on the case flow, you gotta be willing to invest more time and be more comparative here. Their ev is quickly dismissed by you as not being responsive although it’s all quite good on this point. You need to isolate the wrrnts in your card, answer them, and explain why resolve is really important in the context of their card that resolve’s not perceived. The ev comparison you introduce is that your guy is a “polysci major” and their ev is from a crazy liberal. First of all, I really hope your author has further qualifications beyond having graduated from college as a polysci major but second of all, your ev comparison should be more like “only our ev’s froma professor who’s researched these issue s--- their ev is from a random blogger who’s not qualified to assess the complexities of counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan” – you do a better job of ev comparison later on though in regards to your ev being more qualified because it cites a reporter in Pakistan.

=__Practice Debate #4 - Aff (2A) 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. -make a reasonability type arg on T --- you only allow two more affs (withdraw from Iraq and from afghan) should be ur spin -Should always keep some extra cards and add-ons on hand – should never have to rant bc there’s extra time -I think you concede a lot of offense on case --- need clearer answers to loss of credibility/partrial w.d =uniquely bad/allies lose faith, etc. -Decent 2ac – quick and clear --- althgh you sometimes tend to speak into your computer which makes it difficult to get every word -Should have a better AT: how does heg solve war then “US heg is friggin’ amazing --- empirically proven by every war ever” – say something like hegemony deters countries from undertaking aggressive actions because of our overwhelming military superiority --- it means they have more to gain from bandwagoning with the US and our interests than to oppose us. -If you don’t finish reading the terminal impact to an add-on like here where you don’t finish reading like a Russian expansion impact, that should be a reason to say to the other team that they can scratch the add-on --- instead try and use it as a way to turn the DA’s russia impact or finish a terminal impact in the 1ar. -Good job extending all your 1ac impacts -Nice ev comparison/wrrnt comparison --- however, you do a bit too much of that on the DAs in the 2ac --- try to get out a diverse set of args and cards in the 2ac and save a lot of that work for the 1ar and 2ar. -You need to understand how heg solves war and explain that in response to the 2nr’s interventionism turn, you simply keep parroting the phrase “empirically proven” and referring to Thayer  explain the wrrnts above all else and avoid referring to “empirics” unless you actually cite one --- for example, 99 Kargil crisis between india-pakistan was resolved because of the diplomatic might brought to bear by the American hegemon – idk something like that. -I think the strategy of going for heg solves and outweighs the DA is good --- just need to be better on explaining how that’s so and answering their defense. -the 2ar needs a slightly more coherent strategy for playing defense on the DA_-- really clearly explain and impact one or two args that take out the disadvantage and contrast it with the wrrnts in their ev --- its ok to say something like “quality of cards outweighs quantitity”, you just have to prove that your ev meets that burden of being high quality at the end of the debate.

=__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. -You don’t need to read new cards on a lot of these Pakistan args because your 1ac ev says the same thing --- just extend the wrrnts and clash with theirs. “Pakistan won’t be stable for long --- Carpenter says that our presence sends radicals into Pakistan, escalating the insurgency there and ensuring state collapse” -Don’t need to say the words that this is a DA to the CP as an underview to an add-on --- you wanna throw in add-ons quickly, hoping they drop it. -Good 2ac – I would be careful on these case turns though --- I’m not sure you do enough to deal with them – also make sure you’re reading good on point ev to respond to things like the NATO da and clash with the wrrnts in the Carafano turn which is just a laundry list of impacts. - Can make the 2ac tags more efficient --- like tag the link turn “Withdrawal increases political capital” instead of “Link turn --- Continued presence in Afghanistan kills Obama’s political capital” -We talked about avoiding the double turn on ABL --- don’t read a non-unique, link turn, and impact turn all at once on a DA. -You need to do more on the CP --- isolating the solvency deficit and then reading lots of theory --- things like conditionlaity give the aff a huge time tradeoff. 2ar: -Frame the debate for me --- don’t just jump into the line by line --- what have they conceded “they say” should never ever be the first words out of your mouth when your giving a 2ar --- it should probably not be the first words out of your mouth for any speech. -Work on having that persuasive moment --- make contact with the judge make me want to vote for you. -Good job playing D on their standards you need to however win your offense first and then explain why its more important than theirs. -Attack the 2nr for not explaining their limits or grounds standard --- the 2ar’s role is to do 2 things: 1. Make the 2nr look like (s)he did not explain anything 2. Make it look like the 1ar did a ton of work on all of the core issues that your going for. -Compare the green economny add-on with their turns --- do impact calculus or you can even just kick all the rest of your case and explain how, since their case turns are non-unique, they can’t gain any offense and you have a completely isolated warmining impact which solves extinction.
 * Yays for all: **
 * General Suggestions for all: **
 * 2ac: **

=__Practice Debate #9 - Aff (2A) vs. John/Joel (Junior Lab) - August 01__=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, I was pretty impressed with this 2AC. This is probably the biggest 1NC you have had to deal with at camp and you did a nice job. --Hindsight being 20/20, you need more arguments on the two CPs. We certainly got to the CPs but we needed a bit more. If you are running low on time, jettison some of your evidence comparisons on other flows. It is great to have those, but the 1AR can make those. It would be better to get out more args on the CPs. --We need to vary our permutations on these two CPs. We will talk about this in lab. --One other area that you can gain some time back to add more answers to the CP is to remove one of the impact take-outs on START. It is good to have one of those answers, but this was probably a little repetitive. --I did not understand your argument on the Hegemony advantage to 1NC 1 – “Commiting to COIN increases US leadership” – your argument did not seem very responsive. --Highlight down your Jackson 10 “cred low now” card. They have not answered your 1AC claims on the uniqueness question yet, so this card can be very short as a supercharger to that argument. --It is good to have an overview about how case outweighs the DA. However, you should frame this overview about what you are winning, not how “terrible” the ABL DA is. You have to try to win that you control the internal link from the case to try to control or outweigh the impact to the ABL. --Yowser…I don’t think you should kick out of two of your advantages in the 2AR when you have to outweigh a dropped DA. You need every impact you can get your hands on. :) Even if the Negative is winning some defense on these flows, they are not taking it out 100%. You have internal links on the heg flow that are not contested.