ShrKam

=__2ac Politics Drill - July 12__= Comments by Peyton

Good posture but try to work on your clarity in cards a little bit Great analytics - good comparison of uniqueness evidence and hte first one is well structured - maybe group 4 and 5 into two subpoints (a and b) of a prefer our evidence argument on the uniqueness debate Second set of analytics could be more word efficient - so instead of "card is irrelevant and wrong - it's talking about a UK treaty which can't be used to asses the situation currently" - front load this into a stronger argument at the front and try to make it a little more efficient (something like "No impact - their evidence is about a UK Treaty not Cap and Trade" or whatever your argument is. Good use of impact comparisons - but maybe phrase the "We capture their advantage" as "Case solves the impact" ... and why.

=__2nc Politics Drill - July 14__= Comments by Matt - work on your labeling --- say "2ac 1" (etc.) to reference aff arguments- you should work on improving your speed/clarity - impact calculus --- I think that you should include more arguments about the magnitude - good analytics - good card choices....I think that you could even add more cards

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Neg (2N) vs. Lydia/Mike - July 16__=

Comments by Tate
--I would love to have seen an overview to the DA. 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. --Very clear and easy to follow – good sign-posting. --I think you would have been helped by grouping the entire uniqueness debate together – if you do a redo, I would like for you to do this. You also need to extend the 1NC uniqueness card! --Good answers to the Ice Age turn. However, if this is a redo speech, you need to extend the 1NC impact and point out that it was not answered --I am glad you made a timeframe comparison between your Warming Bad extinction claims and the Ice Age. However, shorten this up. You took about thirty seconds to make this argument. --Point out that your “warming --> nuclear war” card turns back the case.

=__Practice Debate #1 - Aff (1A) - vs. Hebah/Andrew - 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 1ac C-X 1ac needs to know his evidence a little better. It gets a bit embarrassing when you can’t explain why a COIN withdrawal is specifically better than other withdrawl strategies. However, the 2n spends too time on this point; this question could have (and probably should have) been resolved in a minute or so. 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” 1ar Keep the other team’s cards organized so we don’t have to waste so much time finding them and giving them back to her Be more efficient. Example: “next on the link debate, first, their link argument” Be more consistent with your evidence applications. Don’t just reread cards like you do with Innoncence (sp?), rather point out why you “solve this better”, which in your speech was the fullest extent of your DA warrants. You say “they concede” a lot when they don’t. Clash with their arguments as opposed to ignoring them.

=__Mini-Debate #2 Speech Redo - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
--It is much better to have your impact calculus at the top, instead of an underview. However, it is often that a 1AR does not have an impact calculus. Remember that this is not necessary for every 1AR. --I am glad that you carded the 1AR. I would definitely highlight this down, since it is a short 1AR. --We need to work on 2AC signposting. You just kind of went on your own 1AR numbering. --Why does it matter if you have the same author as the Negative? Impact that argument (give the "so what").

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

Comments by Tate
--Remember some of the “ethos” tips from the CX lecture. Start your CX of the 1AC immediately…try to posture your body in front of Arjun. You did have great eye contact with me. I thought your line of questioning was good. --I could not help but overhear the discussion in 2NC prep time. It was 6:30 before you all had decided what positions each person was going to take. In all honesty, discussions of how to divide the block can (and should) take place before the debate starts. Obviously, 2AC answers may change some of that but it rarely makes the entire pre-round conversation about block division moot. You lost precious prep time (3 mins of the 2AC CX and 1:30 of neg prep time) on a discussion that you could have had earlier. --It appears that you have good block division. --On the case flows, use 1NC arguments for your signposting, not 2AC. You utilize 2AC structure for signposting on the off-case positions only. --Good to have an overview in the 2NC on Resolve DA. However, you need to write this out. You utilized a lot of words to say not a whole lot. --We need to be much better on the 2AC line-by-line. We need to answer each 2AC argument and in 2AC order. On the Resolve DA, what is your argument to 2AC #1 that heg decline is inevitable? Your answer to 2AC #4 – the cross-app of the Innocent card that says plan is a larger link than reputation loss. --On politics, it is fine to do some grouping on the uniqueness debate but the 2AC 1 and 2AC 2 ar e different types of uniqueness arguments than 2AC 3. You have to answer that our 2011 deadline non-uniques the position and that Iraq drawdown non-uniques your position (this is the 2AC 1 and 2). --If you group the uniqueness debate, you then don’t need to go back and signpost off of each 2AC uniqueness argument. --I am glad that we made a choice in the 2NR. However, the block only spent about two minutes on T. That typically does not bode well for a 2NR choice to go for T. --It is good to have an overview for the 2NR for T, but to talk about why T comes before anything else is somewhat irrelevant in a world that the Aff does not have any theory args. Judges know that T comes before the DAs. Have your overview be an explanation of your interpretation OR why limits outweighs predictability. --Why did we start the line-by-line in the 2NR on the counter-interpretation? The first argument on the flow is the “we meet”. Also, the 1AR did not extend the counter-interpretation. --I don’t understand your “mug” an d”sweater” examples. --Don’t signpost using 1NR numbering. Utilize 2AC structure for your signposting. --Good discussion on limits. Why do limits outweigh predictability? Why is your definition predictable? --Glad that you pointed out that they did not extend their counter-interpretation, but you did this at the end. This is potentially a round-winning argument…should be in the overview.

=__Practice Debate #4 - Neg (2N) vs. Sebastian/Conor - July 25__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
I don't think the CP was a viable option. Your time in the 2NC would have been better spent extending the ABL disad so Mike wouldn't have to take so much in the 1NR. You had extra time at the end, so this certainly could have been done, especially because the ABL disad only had two impact turns and an impact d card on it. In the 2NR, make sure you have an overview with comparisons of the standards on T. You should make reference to both your ev and the aff ev on this point. Try to keep a better line by line in the 2NR. You did good analysis on your limits standard, but you did the same analysis multiple times in different places because you couldn't find where you were on the flow.

=__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. **2nc:** -Really good C-X --- but you want to work on asking your questions more efficiently and articulately so you can do them more quickly. You also want to calm down a tad --- your not in a fight against your opponent, you’re trying to demonstrate a point to the judge. -It sucks that your computer died keep it charged at all times. -Impac calc at the top of the DA your going for – always gotta do impac calc. -You need to read cards on the impct turn --- if you don’t have any because your computer died that’s fine but as a general point. -You should try and make a t/f distinction between your impact and theirs --- theirs is about actual development of the laser --- yours is about the arms race that occurs once we start trying to develop the laser. -You read your impact evidence to the ABL DA again – Hecht 84 – that was in the 1nc --- no reason to. -Also --- it’s good to contest that space solves all war ever --- the way you want to do it is you want to say space lasers can’t shoot down direct energy weapons which is the only scenario for a future conflict. -I think you do a really good job with warrant comparison and ev comparison on a lot of these turns The next step for you is to make these arguments really quickly and efficiently instead of taking twenty-thirty seconds to do so --- Also, when you indict their ev as being from CATO, an ideological libertarian think tank, the only way to make that offensive is if you have a reason your ev is better and not biased  like CATO simply adheres to libertarian ideologue whereas our ev is from a non-partisan thinktank that makes policy assessments based on objective studies, not pre-determined foreign policy biases. It’s better if you have cards for these types of args though like cards that indict CATO. - Do impac calculus with your turns – like extend nato and be like this outweighs the case --- a. magnitude --- European war alone accesses Us-Russian conflict it’s the only war that can cause extinction --- smaller regional conflicts like in Pakistan don’t involve enough nukes [read a card like Bostrom if possible]. --- you also want to read cards that say NATO cohesion solve Afghanistan and solve heg to turn the case. -Answer the green economy add-on --- it can be dvestating if you drop that. The easiest way I think is if you don’t go for ABL and concede their argument that the plan costs more than it saves. 2nr: -Don’t need to say “must evaluate topicality before everything” -Don’t just jump into the line by line --- frame the debate for me--- why have they lost, what have they screwed up, what is the impat to your arg, why is the aff egregiously untopical I think your doing a really good job technically, you just need to frame this in one coherent fashion as a clear way for me to sign my ballot negative. -Explain the limits standard, what affs do they allow, what affs do you allow. -Explain your ground standard --- not just the impact to it --- what ground do you lose -Compare limits to predictability --- even if the win they’re slightly more predictable, you should still vote for our version of the topic because it narrows the scope of the topic, allowing for more in-depth debate on a couple of core issues. -There’s no reason to go for case here --- win one argument like win topicality or go for case and win it – not both. -I don’t understand what anyone is saying here on this CP --- don’t even talk about it --- kick it dear god --- something about converting COIN troops to CT troops even though the CP is about creating a new UN security council for counter-terror operations! There’s no impact to any of this.
 * Yays for all: **
 * General Suggestions for all: **

=__Back to Basics Drill: START DA - Block speech - July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--Overall, you did a pretty good job signposting. You probably want to give a brief label of what the Aff argument is (i.e. 2AC 2 - not at top of docket). --You can group like arguments - 2AC 1 and 2 are both about top of the docket. 2AC 3 and 4 are both why it won't pass. --You did a good job on the line-by-line, but you need A LOT more evidence. You need to 2:1 every piece of Aff evidence. They say START won't pass - you read two cards saying it will. --We need to utilize the 1NC shell a lot more.

=__Back to Basics Drill: START DA - Redo- July 29__=

Comments by Tate
--I am glad we added an impact calculus. We can even improve on this by writing it out word for word. Work on efficiency. This was a pretty long overview. --The first piece of evidence you read against 2AC "Energy Bill at top of the docket" was fine, but the second one was not responsive. Cards about whether or not it will pass are irrelevant. What is relevant is when START is being debated. --We were sort of signposting but we need to do more than "off link debate". For starters, their Kyl arguments is a non-unique argument :). Make sure to try to reference 2AC by number as well. --Good job extending 1NC evidence by cite. --Speech is infinitely better with evidence...we just had a few misfires on whether we were correctly answering the 2AC arguments. --Not compelling to say our evidence is better since we read more of it. We said that twice.

=__Practice Debate #9 - Neg (2N) vs. Junior Lab - August 01__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
2NC Good speech. You should invest in speaking drills that focus on clarity. START - Your impact analysis on the DA should be more comparative and clear. You need to not only extend your impacts but explain why they outweigh. Structure in the 2NC is extremely important. You should begin with the UNQ debate, the Link Debate, and the impact debate. The ideal way to go about this is to point out the weaknesses in your opponent's cards, extend your 1NC evidence, and read more evidence. CP - you should begin with a large overview that explains the internal links that the CP accesses and the CP. You should be clear that the CP solves 100% of case/ the impact to the DA outweighs any of the solvency deficits. You should group all of the perms and answer them with analytics and evidence. Read more solvency ev for the CP. 2NR Good job. START - Although all your args on the overview are true, you should explain why your impact outweighs the case. There should be a clear story in the 2NR. Extend your offense and answer their one arg. Case - you need to do a better job on impacting your args. Even if they have conceded "hearts and minds now" you need to give a reason how that interacts with the aff/ compromises their ability to solve. This analysis should be done for all of the case args. ABL - Refer to the comments for START