LydLee

=__2AC Politics Drill - July 12__=

Comments by Peyton - Good Speed - could work on volume a little bit more - Good use of diverse warrants for your Uniqueness cards - Good reading of their evidence - try to front load your argument more and write it almost like a tag - so instead of "their evidence says this specifically in the fine print... prefer our evidence" start with "prefer our evidence - theirs says ... " no need to clarify where in their evidence - Good use of impact analysis - Can be more efficient and phrased offensively (similar to your analytics, make sure it's making a distinct argument) - Stay in speech mode (try to cut out some of the "oh craps" if you fumble around a little bit) - Try to generate some offense - either pick some link or impact turns

=__2NC Politics Drill - July 14__= Comments by Peyton - Really good impact comparison work - I'd put it in an overview at the top of the disad. Also try not to use "solves back"... be more specific about what you mean. Does the disad access the case impacts? Does cap and trade solve pull out? probably not... but warming might short circuit or prevent solvency etc., so be more precise when doing comparative impact claims. - Great Evidence comparison and I think the analytics are much better this time in terms of being offensive and frontloaded. - Use your 1NC evidence - start by extending it on the uniqueness debate, then read your new cards - Still can work on staying in speech mode ("oh crap" twice again :) and an "oh dang" ) -- CONFIDENCE. your speech is really good, be more confident about that. - Try to signpost more clearly - So say the 2AC numbers your answering and then 1. 2. 3. your arguments.

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Aff (1A) vs. Erik/Shreyas - July 16__=

Comments by Tate
--Good to utilize specific cards from the 1NC to formulate your CX questions. --You should always move down and stand next to the person questioning. We will go over this in the CX lecture tomorrow. --You had good CX questions, but I would have liked to have seen some follow-ups or probes. Try to dig deeper – don’t just accept your opponent’s answer on face and move on to another issue. --Great to structure your 1AR on 2AC signposting. You did a nice job with this. --Nice to also talk about why you should prefer your evidence. --You can’t make a “case solves back the DA” when you are impact turning. --You need to card your 1AR on politics. I think you are in more danger on this DA than ABL. --This speech sounded very good, but it lacked offense. I did not hear you extend 2AC arguments on the politics DA. Did you go for 2AC non-uniques? I heard you extend 2AC #1 but not really answer or try to win the uniqueness debate. You indict the Warming Bad impacts, but do you extend the Ice Age turn?

=__Mini-Debate #2 - Neg (2N) vs. Konstantine/Fri - July 17__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
Overall Yays for the round: -Pretty excellent line by line for sophomores --- nice to all of you -All debaters are pretty quick for sophomores too -Nice job making ev indicts and qualifications comparisons! -Good work trying to sprinkling new impacts on the line by line in the 2nc. Lydia specifically: you dropped some 2ac args --- I'm not sure if this is entirely your fault as the 3 minutes you were given did not seem sufficient to answer all of the 2ac args (Nice job to Constantine for putting in a diverse set of 2ac responses). In any case, a little more efficiency and perhaps writing out your args more fully so you dont stumble as much on the analytics could help you gain some time. You should also inititate some impac calculus in the 2nc perhaps in the overview, clearly extend your impact and articulate why warming outweighs the aff impacts. For example, a. magnitude --- warming causes sea rise which guarantees extinction --- whereas a terrorist attack would only instigate a small regional war and an Afghani conflict may cause millions in Central Asia to die but wouldn't cause human annihiliation. b. timeframe --- etc. etc.

=__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (1A) vs. Matt/Emma - July 21__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
1AC: This speech was fine and fast. The 1AC was understandable but you should invest in speaking drills that emphasize certain, important words; make sure that you are constantly being clear (even in the cards). Make sure to delineate between the tag and the card. Although I have no problem flowing, there are definitely some clarity problems. During CX, you were confident and clear – you understood the aff and explained it well. 1AR: This speech was fine and clear. The order in the 1AR 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 You needed to have more structure. You should have taken time to plan out the best args to go for and developed them extensively. The 1AR should have extended offense on each of the flows and extended the warrants in each of the cards. 1A flows = good

=__Practice Debate #4 - Aff (1A) vs. Lydia/Tanner - July 25__= Comments by Tate --Good, clear, fast reading of the 1AC. --Good to start CX of the 1NC immediately. I thought your questions were pretty good and logical, i.e. the argument list for the ground that the Neg lost on T. --Time allocation in 1AR was pretty good. --We really need to avoid having our partner write out parts of our speech. The partner should not prep an entire flow. --You need to card your 1ARs! --On Topicality, go ahead and extend a “we meet”. --On Topicality, explain what your counter-interpretation is. You say you have a clear case list but what is it? You extend that predictability outweighs limits but you don’t extend why your interpretation is more predictable. --I am glad you picked up that they tried to kick out of a straight-turned ABL DA. However, your extension of this did not make much sense. It needs to be explained more clearly what the “new advantage” is. --When we are at a loss for arguments, we are making shallow indicts to their arguments – like “crappy analyticals” and “load of crap”. These are not arguments. To say that the other team has a bad argument without saying why is just as “bad of an argument”. :) --Why will START not pass? You need to warrant your extension. --Redo: Card your 1AR. Get more specific to your arguments…give “why” statements for every 2AC argument extension. Each argument needs to go one step deeper. =__Practice Debate #7 - Neg (2N) vs. Kirby/Shawn (Interlab) - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Good to start CX right away. Good to question the older date of the “now is key” from 2008. --Make sure your questions are complete – the question “Why is Afghanistan key?” is not a complete thought. --I would like to see a little less prep used for the 2NC. --Good division of the negative block. --Remember, your CP gives your link uniqueness on the ABL DA. You freeze troop withdrawal. --We need much better answers to the space-based laser turn on ABL. Are there cards in the file to answer this? We need to have a 2N block to this. ---We needed MUCH more extension on ABL. You should be outcarding the Aff 2:1 on this DA. I want you to redo this extension. --It is fine to kick-out of the Minerals DA in the 2NC but make sure we do it correctly. You should have taken about 4-5 minutes on this position. --Overview/Impact calculus on ABL?\ --It was good to catch the hegemony double-turns/contradictions, but we need to do more on this. --We overall did a good job “line-by-line” debating…we just need more ev against 2AC arguments…this is true on the case debate as well. --Good to point out specific case drops since the 2A generically grouped the entire advantages. --I know you can do more than what you did in this 2NC. It seemed like we only had a 3-4 minute speech prepared…and we took a lot of prep time for that. --Good to have an overview in the 2NR. Explain this a bit more big-picture – explain why CP solves a good portion of the Aff and that you only need a small risk of the ABL DA. --Much more needed on ABL in the 2NR. Explain your impact story more. You can’t get out of their impact turns by just saying “this is ridiculous”. --Remember that the Aff kicked Afghan Instability. You have to answer how the CP solves for the Iran advantage – if not, then the CP does zero for you.

=__2NC Redo from Practice Debate #7 - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Thanks for working through this redo with me. It just seemed like you were "off your game" today in the practice debate and I wanted us to get back on the horse. :) --Great to have an overview - good to start it with "DA outweighs the case". I probably would start immediately with magnitude - there was some irrelevant discussion after you said "DA outweighs the case" and the first subpoint. --Even the addition of this overview made this speech infinitely better. :) Save that overview and you can read it again and again. --Good to include that the CP makes the "Link inevitable" claim irrelevant (2AC 1). You need to make this argument more word efficient, however. Explain why CP takes out this answer (freezes troop reductions). --The line-by-line was better (although it was okay today). You did have more evidence this speech, but still not enough. In a world that you don't have a direct evidentiary response to a 2AC evidenced answer, you have to do "smoke and mirrors". More cards need to be read before you get to 2AC 6. --Much better...keep on adding in evidence...build that wall of ink.

=__Practice Debate #8 - Aff (1A) vs. Other Soph Lab - July 30__=

Comments by Luke Hill
Open your mouth, make sure to hit all the words and syllables 45 seconds read more ev, or more warrents in your ev Back flow and prep 1Ar- debate warrents, go faster, cover flows, smart cross applications