EriHow

=__**2ac Politics Drill - July 12**__= Comments by Peyton

Good volume, you can maybe work on appearing confident right off the bat, even before you start speaking Good card comparison on the uniqueness debate - maybe structure your "newness" arguments a little more succinctly and offensively instead of just stating it's newness - so "Prefer our evidence - it post dates and... " that's important because .... Be careful about double turning yourself - see Anshuman's comments about this.

=__Mini Debate #1 - Negative (1N) vs. Mike/Lydia- July 16__=

Comments by Tate
--Make sure to label your off-case positions in the 1NC. --Start off a little slower so the judge can get used to your tone. I had zero issues with clarity in this speech, with the exception of the first ten words. :) --This is just an “ethos” thing but you had two seconds left in the 1NC and then started another card…the timer went off and you trailed off “awww…”. A more positive, memorable ending to your speech would have just finished up the warming = extinction card . Just be aware of your timer.  ---I would love to have seen an overview to the DA in the 1NR. I know it is a “short” speech since it is a mini-debate but to something to set a filter for the debate…a brief story of the DA, an impact trump, etc.  --Be hesitant about making “recession” and “job loss” analyticals – those arguments tend to not gain you much traction (they are not round-winners) and they are really overdone by younger debaters. You spent about :20 seconds in a 2 minute speech on that analytical.  --Let’s work on word efficiency. For the 1NR, I would like for you to have written out most of your analyticals. Your analyticals should follow a two-part template – the first part should be the short tag (or argument) and the second part should be the warrant. For example – “Our evidence post – dates – your uniqueness evidence assume the recent McChyrstal firing which alters the entirety of the likely budget placement for future DOD projects”

=__Practice Debate #2 - Neg (1N) vs. Konstantine/Nick - July 21__=

Comments by Chris Mair
Don’t think you should have conceded that heg solves warming because you don’t really do much work dealing with the affs internal link. Even if it is true that heg solves warming you aren’t explaining why they don’t access it. I would spend more time on the heg flow, especially considering this is the route you are going to spin for a 2nr arg + the lack of coverage by the 2nc. For your rebuttal redo, I would advise just a complete change in strategic working, and block division. Maybe with the 2nc taking the DA’s while you take the case arguments in the 1nr. Also, never concede that the aff is T. It’s just a waste of time even going to that flow in the first place

= __Practice Debate #3 - Aff (2A) vs. Max/Imanol - July 24__ =

Comments by Tate
--Try to be more organized with your 2AC prep. Because of pre-round disclosure yesterday, you should have really taken no prep time for the 2AC. You gave the perception that you were pretty disorganized, which is one of those ethos tips. --I don’t understand your “we meet” on T. COIN troops are intended for combat. --Write out your 2ac blocks for these positions. It sounds like you were speaking off the top of your head on the analyticals for the ABL DA. --We double-turned on ABL. You read a link turn (we spend more money) and then impact turned (ABL good for space-based lasers). Good to be offensive, but watch turning on both the link and the impact level. --The impact to the politics DA is warming. You make the argument that you solve heg…more needed about how you solve warming. --Good diversity of answers on politics. --Utilize the case cards from the 1AC more specifically – cross-apply cards that Anshuman read. --I don’t understand your Vietnam analytical on case. --Go line-by-line more on case. Answer each 1NC argument. --Always be aware of your time. Try to get to all of the case flows in your eight minutes. --Always act like you are winning…even in getting set up for the 2AR speech. --They did not go for ABL…they did not make new arguments. --You need an overview in the 2AR! Tell me why you are winning the debate. --I am not sure it was strategic to kick out of the hegemony advantage. --No underviews! --Much, much more needed on politics…extend specific 2AC/1AR arguments.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Aff (2A) vs. Ben/Arjun - July 27__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Be sure to check the CP text before the 2AC so you make the right args. In the 2AR, you should do more nuanced impact calc. Even if two impacts both lead to extinction, they're not necessarily equal. Make arguments about how well your plan accesses the internal links to your impacts versus how well their disad accesses its impacts.

=__Practice Debate #6 - Neg (1N) vs. Sebastian/Connor - July 28__=

Comments by Chris Mair
You need to do a better job of using your evidence to your advantage – you read no evidence in the 1nr which hurts the block a lot because it makes the 1ar a lot easier to deal with – read more solvency ev or at best, don’t spend 5 mins on the cp because there’s only one or two arguments made against it. You aren’t really giving me a cohesive reason why the aff is not a da to the cp, or why the cp solves the entirety of the case – you are making some args that the cp solves instability and heg, but there’s no why discussion.

=__Practice Debate #7- Aff (2A) vs. Nick/Konstantine - July 29__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
-Learn to explain your case more quickly and isolate specific internal links that a CP may not solve -- this may take a careful review of every piece of 1ac evidence and writing some blocks. -When an argument is conceded, don't just mention the impact to the argument --- explain what the arg is and why it matters in the debate. For example, instead of referring to the space turn on the ABL da as "they've conceded we solve all war ever" explain how that's true and why that means they lose.

=__Practice Debate #8 - Neg (1N) 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.

1nc c-x – 1a should be questioning why the neg’s list of cases is more advantageous. How can an aff get advantages off of drone strikes? How does the neg get any competitive da ground? Also, wouldn’t a reduction in drones mean the people who pilot drones would be out of a job?

1nr – don’t need to say “I would like to extend”. Don’t make stuff up! ArmyTimes does not control the budget, they are a news magazine and do not have more information on the budget. Why do you need to say basically? You don’t specify why the finance differential is key to your argument; why do they NEED $1.1 trillion? It seems like all these other closures and changes would have provided the necessary funds. You also should be clearer on when the brink to your impact is…if other countries will preemptively strike us due to the ABL, then why, given that the bill is “a big pet project” (as you yourself put it), haven’t these strikes already happened? You need to make a stronger case that the act of actively developing the system is what triggers the impact