EmmBro

__**Emma Brooks**__ =__2AC Politics Drill - July 12th__=

Comments by Tate
- Try to “label” your arguments – it is good to say “won’t pass” or “non-unique” before giving the warrants - Nice speed! Very nice. You kept up a great rhythm. Most young debaters start off fast and then trail off. You kept up the speed. - Great diversity of arguments. You read two uniqueness cards with different warrants. - I am VERY glad you chose the route of a very offensive speech. However, we want to make sure not to double-turn. You should choose to either (a) link turn by reading cards like the “Winners’ Win” argument or (b) Warming Good – staves off Ice Age. Reading both link turns and impact turns creates a whole new DA against you. - Good to play defense against the impact when impact turning. In an ideal world (where you have all of your tubs and any piece of evidence at your disposal), try to play defense against the impact that does not take out your impact turn. Ideally, instead of saying “No warming…it is all hype” (which takes out your Ice Age link), you would want to say “Warming does not equal extinction” or “we can adapt to the bad impacts of warming”.

=__2NC Politics Drill - July 14th__= Comments by Peyton - Really good speed and volume - Don’t try to force yourself to go faster than you are, it’ll help smooth you out a little bit and use less “ums” - Great signposting – and good distinctive numbering makes it really easy to flow you - Good evidence comparison and warrants. - Make sure to read uniqueness cards with distinct warrants (not just two oil cards) – if you’re going for uniqueness. - I think you could use an impact overview – especially if you’re going to concede a double turn, it’s easier to do in the overview. - You shouldn’t try to win uniqueness – non unique arguments are necessary for this to be offense. – so this speech should be about 45 seconds of explicitly conceding each part of the 2AC double turn, cite the exact pieces of evidence (Non unique, link turn, and impact turn), explain the new scenario, and explain why there’s no way of getting out of this / no offense the other direction (in this case cite the impact defense the 2AC reads to your original scenario)

=__Mini-Debate #2 - Aff (2A) vs. Arjun/Sebastian - July 17__=

Comments by Tate
--Be careful about “tag-teaming” in CX. It makes your partner look weak. --Again, nice speed and clarity. Good rhythm and pleasant to listen to. -- Small tweak on 2AC signposting – you don’t need to say “first, my uniqueness” and then read your cards and then say “on to impacts”. Just number your arguments…you don’t need to preview what DA theory section you are on. --Overall, this was a rocking 2AC. Great variety and offense. My only suggestion is to truly make sure you are not being repetitive. For example, are the warrants for your first two non-uniques on politics the same? I would have diversified this a bit more. --Make a non-unique analytical on ABL that we are withdrawing troops from Iraq now – this is always the problem with “generic” DAs…the links are typically non-unique .

=__Speech Redo from Mini-Debate #2__=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, Emma did a fantastic job taking in my comments from the mini-debate! She made her non-uniques more diversified and made the small tweaks on sign-posting. --One further comment - it is a fine-line in regards to what is "too short" for evidence. I think you can probably highlight a few of your cards down a bit more (Your uniqueness cards were a bit long). I don't want to preach about short cards :), but often times 2AC non-uniques can be a bit short now. --Aside from the comments I made, Emma added some extra nuances based on discussions the last two days in lab (i.e. Plan is a prerequisite to preventing warming). Nice work!

=__Practice Debate #1 - Aff (2A) vs. Mahnvee/Carol - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
2AC: --Good order. I like case put before the DAs. --Why is it good that your definition is more qualified on T? Make sure to impact those “reasons to prefer our ev” --Loved the fact that you utilized predictability > limits. --Shorten up your analytical arguments on your T frontline. --Include a set of reasonability answers on the T debate. --Good utilization of 1AC cards on the case debate. --Make sure you rely on flows, not the evidence your opponents give you. They did not get an answer on the heg debate. --Not that it is wrong, but why impact turn vs. link turn on politics? --Does your impact take-out to warming also take out your impact turn? --Watch being repetitive on our analyticals – what sparked this comment was the bottom of the Resolve DA. Some of your separate arguments are just nuances of previous analyticals or cards from above. CX of 2NC: --Watch saying “Did you listen to the 1AC?” Sounds a bit too snippy. --I thought we lost a bit of our thunder in CX. The CX did not seem very prepared or thought-out. Make sure you have a few questions and use the answers to those questions to ask follow-ups. 2AR: --You should have some type of overview to start the debate. Probably a short rant about why Predictability is the filter for the debate would be good. --You do a pretty good job focusing on drops from the 2AC. Try to keep those in order of the 2AC and distinct. Focus first on why you meet. That is a separate argument as to why their interpretation is bad (overlimiting, not qualified, etc). --Watch saying their definition is both overlimiting and increases their research burden through ridiculous cases. --Extend your counter-interpretation! --Goals: (1) Have an overview. (2) Try to stay very tight to 2AC line-by-line. (3) Extend the counter-interpretation and the reasons why it is better. = = = = =__Practice Debate #2 - Neg (1N) vs. Tanner/Lydia - July 21__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
1NC: In terms of clarity and emphasize on the right words, this speech was excellent. Your transition between flows was good. Your should focus on speaking drills that make you a bit faster, but make sure to not lose your clarity. Also, try to get to case with more time However, make sure the computer doesn’t cover your face. 1NR: This speech was fine. You need to do less of a “rant/ lecture” style speech and more of a line by line, structured speech. On T, you need to have a more clear focus. Start with an overview, identifying your offense. You need a topical version of the aff and you need to restate the abuse in the round. Also, so comparative work between interpretations. On case, you need to extend, by cite, the authors from the 1NC. You should also answer the 2AC’s answers. 1N flows = great

=__Rebuttal Redo from Practice Debate #1 - July 25__=

Comments by Tate
--I am glad that you had an overview for this speech. This is a minor tweak, but your overview you be grounded in why you win, not what the Neg has done wrong. This is just slight change in wording. I think you should start the overview immediately with "Predictability outweighs limits". --This speech was much more tied to 2AC/1AR arguments. --I thought you did a great job talking about why your definition was better - qualifications, the type of case list, etc. --I would try to do a bit more with the "we meet" argument. If I remember correctly, the 2NR did not answer this very well. Reference 1AC cards that cite some of these other duties that COIN troops do.

=__Practice Debate #7 - Aff (1A) vs. Elizabeth/Tajin - July 28__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
I like how thorough you were with impact calc in the 2AR, but be less reactive in how you word it.

In the 2AC, you can spend less time on case by using your 1AC evidence more instead of reading new cards. You should also not spend quite as much time on the CP, especially when it doesn't have a good NB. That would free up more time to make more answers on the disads.