AnjKhu

=__2AC Politics Drill - July 12th__=

Comments by Tara
- You have a nice speed already…we want to keep that up with more speaking drills. You already have a nice rhythm started which is half the battle. - Good diversity of arguments – although you four non-uniques, they all had different warrants. I think we probably could have read one less non-uniquness argument. It is good to have a diversity of non-unique arguments but it is better to have a diversity on all parts of the flow. - Typically, it is better to link turn than impact turn on the Politics DA. You need to view the link level as your ground – those are cards specific to your Aff. The Aff should always have better quality link turns to a politics DA than the Negative’s link. - When impact turning, you need to take out the impact before you externally turn. - Instead of reading “Warming is all hype”, it is better to make an argument that “warming does not equal extinction” or “we can adapt”. The arguments that you read take out your impact turn (Ice Age).

=__2NC Politics Drill - July 15__= Comments by Peyton Good extension by name and use of an overview – can improve by using it for impact analysis - making comparative claims about your impacts having greater probability or magnitude (what you start at the end of the line by line) - don't need to reexplain the disad story. Good clear signposting – can use numbers to signpost clearly and efficiently (so intsead of they say ... - 2AC 1 - Non Unique 1. Your answer 2. new card etc.) If they only make a Non unique claim, you don't need to read any top of docket cards Use your 1NC cards in the line by line- so for the Uniqueness debate etc. Make sure posture is better – I know our location isn’t ideal. Don’t need to cross apply within the same speech Good line by line. Paraphrase their arg – not “they say fake and good and …” – instead "they say no warming" But good author qualifications comparison Be more clear and front load/structure your arguments on the impact comparisons or turn that you're trying to concede. Bring up more than you think you can get through.

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Hebah/Anjay vs. Mahnvee/Ken - July 17__=

Comments by Layne Kirshon
These general comments apply to everyone. No one made any glaring errors/was unclear – in fact, all of you sounded great! That said, there are some meta-level changes you all should make to be more persuasive/effective --always look at the judge in CX. You’re convincing the judge, not each other, that you are right. Looking at the judge also means you can see their facial expressions/body-language for various arguments --speed is a MEANS not an END. Every speech in this debate ended early! Being fast is a necessary evil in debate because of timed speeches, but if you aren’t filling up your time, be slow. Tripp was one of the best debaters ever and he went barely faster than conversation speed. --Divide up cross-x correctly. This applies to the aff, not the neg, but the 2A was cross-xing the 1N and then you didn’t have questions for the 2N. You need to maximize evry cross-x as it’s a way to interact with the other team’s arguments. Also, you should give the correct cross-x because it maximizes prep time. --Arguments need warrants, not just claims! This in particular applies to the 2NC and 1AR in this debate (the 1NR was actually pretty good about this). While the 1NC/2AC just have to read cards, later speeches require argument DEVELOPMENT. WHY is the airborn laser good, WHY is war with Russia more likely. Overall, good debate. Everyone seemed to have a really good conceptual grasp of the arguments. =__Practice Debate #1 - Aff (2A) vs. Max/Imanol - July 20__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
It's good that you're comparing the dates on evidence, but you should do a bit more to explain why that's important. Make sure your 2AC is more varied. On ABL you only read impact turns. Try to organize the 2AC blocks better. We meet on T should be your first argument, not the last, for example.

=__Rebuttal Redo (2AR) - Practice Debate #1 - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
--Good that you realized the 2NR kicked out of a straight-turned DA. I would announce this to some degree. When you go to the flow, announce that it was straight turned. You somewhat do this but it is in the middle of the extension of the arguments. I would do this at the top. --When extending cards on ABL, you do a good job extending specific cards by cite. I would like to hear a bit more "Aff lingo". Spin the story in regards to the Aff story specifically. --I don't understand your "abuse" story. Remember, be wary of this "phrase". The older debaters get, the more they move away from "abuse claims". Abuse story was explained after speech. The "abuse" was a new argument in the 2NR. Just state that it is new and that you shouldn't have to answer it. --Definitely a strength of this speech was referring to cards by cite. --Try to tie back to specific 2AC and 1AR extensions.

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

Comments by Helen Gomez
2AC The 2AC was overall good – it was clear and understandable. The initial order in the 2AC was incorrect. Remember to always place case before the DA. Your answers on case were excellent! You made awesome evidence comparisons, historical allusions, and warrant comparisons. However, once you read through your analytics, you just read cards without doing much line by line. Make sure to identify what neg arg you are answering. You spent way too much time on case (over 5 minutes) – be more efficient and group args. To save time, you \ need to extend more 1AC cards. Politics: good analysis of neg cards. You saw the flaw in their internal link and identified it. 2AR: Good analysis on modeling v. hegemony. You should give more warrants. Give reasons why hegemony is key to modeling and why modeling is key to solve for warming. At the end, you made good impact analysis but this needs to be in the beginning. Extend the timeframe and the magnitude args. There needs to be a point in the debate where you connect with the judge and say “this is where we are going to win the debate” Do not forget about your evidence – extend it. Do not extend args that were not in the 1AR – you should use 1AR language and analysis Got to politics with too little time (1 minute). There needs to be more structure in the 2AC on politics. Start with an overview: “case outweighs and turns the DA” and give reasons why the aff impacts outweigh climate change (timframe, magnitude). Here you should also read defense on warming. Get to the uniqueness debate and link turns. You need offense on politics.

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

Comments by Tate
-We need to work on avoiding reading directly into the laptop. I am not sure if we need to make the font bigger on your screen so you can take a step back or work on your posture. Right now, your words are heading straight into the computer. -Try to make your off-case positions more specific to the Aff. Reword your Topicality violation to account for specifics of the Aff plan. Replace the generic link card on START with a card specific to Afghanistan. -I am glad that we got a variety of answers on each of the case flows. Try to include some analyticals with the evidence you are reading. Anjali got a bit of traction in the CX of the 1AC that would have made for some fruitful analytical arguments on the case debate. -Is START truly a net-benefit to this CP? Congress would not freak out over a plan that negotiates with the Taliban? Really? :) -I would have liked to have seen more “oomph” in the CX of Ben. There were times that there were long pauses. Take the answers Ben gives you to try to generate new material for further questions. - We double-turned on the heg flow in the 1NR. :( You extended 1NC cards about why withdrawal hurts credibility and then you read new 1NR args about why heg was bad. First, don’t read brand new offensive arguments in the 1NR (new cards that are extending on 1N args are fine). Second, watch both link turning and impact turning. --I think you covered too many flows in the 1NR. Going for case and three case flows is a bit much. It is better to cover arguments in-depth than shallowly covering many positions. --On Topicality, provide a case list of cases included/excluded by your interpretation. Is there a topical version of their Aff? --You need an overview on T. --I am glad that you extended some of your 1NC case cards by cite (i.e. on the heg flow, the WSJ 2009 evidence). That extension, however, needed a bit more sophistication. Why should we prefer the Pakistani foreign minister? Probably the best argument is that our credibility is determined by world leaders – these are the best sources of our true nature of our credibility.

=__Practice Debate #7 - Aff (2A) vs. George/Clark (Interlab) - July 29__=

Comments by Caitlin Bruce
2ac; more argument diversity use 1ac ev better make offesneive args on both disads 2ar; extend args actually made answer every level of the disad

=__Back to Basics Drill: Topicality - July 31__=

Comments by Tate
--It is imperative that you signpost. You have to distinguish between the overview and the line-by-line. You have to distinguish which 2AC argument you are on. This got better when I stopped you and we restarted. However, I can't do that when you are in an actual round. --Good to have an overview. --Really make sure to have your case list be specific - stating "bases" is not painting the visual for the judge. State a list of actual specific cases that the judge can visualize.

--Every judge is tired of the pregnancy analogy. I would probably not state that.