FriLav

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

Good use of analytics and reading their cards – make sure to phrase card attacks as distinct arguments Very Fast – can work on word efficiency – you can cut out the “absolutely” “Specifically” “completely” “clearly” etcetera. Distinguish arguments – number punched out, or NEXT, AND etcetera Distinguish tags/cards a little bit more – either louder on tags or slightly slower etcera Good impact analysis but make sure you’re not stating what you’re going to do, but instead just go ahead and make the argument (so not “even if we lose all the rest of this we’ll still win because,” just make the “case outweighs” argument)

=__2nc Politics Drill - July 14__=

Comments by Matt

- work on your organization --- think of what the flow will look like for the judge - pretty good speed - work on clarity - work on distinguishing the tags/cites - good card choices

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Neg vs. Conor/Andrew - July 16__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Team Comments - Neg: Make sure the 1NC shells are assembled before getting up to speak. In the 2NC and 1NR, be more on-point with answering the specifics of the 2AC. For example, when they read warming science fails or warming isn't anthropogenic, reading more warming impacts isn't responsive. Good on doing comparisons on uniqueness on politics. Point out more concessions like the link to politics.

=__Mini-Debate #2 - Aff (1A) vs. Lydia/Mike - July 17__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
... Yays for everyone: -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! Fry: I think you may want to start off a bit calmer and slower. You also want to focus more on the dropped arguments that the analytics from cross-ex --- don't get me wrong, its great your bringing those into the debate --- it's just that you need to focus on explaining the args dropped by the block because they're more damning and substantiated by evidence. The impac calculus was good --- you wanna however work on efficiency and reducing repetition so you can say more instead of saying the same thing twice. =__Mini-Debate #1 Speech Redo - July 20__=

Comments by Tate
--Thanks for telling me what the context of the redo was. That is helpful when a lab leader is watching a speech from a debate he/she did not watch. --You have a lot of great speed. However, we really need to work on our clarity. At times, it seems like you are skipping words. My suggestion (and I know it won't be popular) is to slow down a tiny bit to increase clarity. It will also keep you from stumbling over words...which means that you will likely get in more if you slow down a tiny bit. Your clarity got better at the end. --Your signposting sounds pretty on target. --This speech seemed to be pretty heavy on analytics. Analytics are great to have but make sure that they are round-winning arguments and your thoughts are clear. Every time you make an analytical argument, make sure you know how that argument is going to help you on that position. --I am glad that you followed Jeffrey's suggestions about extending the link concessions. I think you need to do this after the uniqueness debate, though, and not at the bottom.

=__Practice Debate #3 - Aff (1A) vs. Hebah/Andrew - July 24__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
Yays for everyone: -Quick, relatively clear delivery all around. -Intelligently discussed – people seem to have some understanding of the issues being discussed. -Specific yays are under each person. Suggestions for everyone: General --- C-x ends when timer ends --- should generally only finish responses if its only a sentence more or so and shouldn’t ask questions. 1ac: -As of the 1ac, there is a need to work on distinguishing tags and cites from cards --- I missed many cites and at least 1 tags bc of this --- overall clarity could be improved on both card and tag but most important for you is to clearly enunciate the tag, cite, and year --- view the tag not as something to be gotten through as quickly as possible but as something to be communicated to the person in the back of the room. -Very good C-X --- need to move on though once you’ve made your point, else you waste too much time on a point regarding the ABL 1ar: Put case on top, protect the house I thought this 1ar was very good --- however, a strategic reorientation would make this devastating –- it may benefit you to recognize that they have conceded two decent defensive args on the DA and that they flat out cannot win on it if the 2ar does a good job explaining that defense – their only point of offense is thus this mini resolve da on case and this terror da – keeping that in mind, you could probz blow off the da in 30 seconds or less by extending the defense persuasively, then focus on devestating the other two pieces of offense --- you’ve severely outcarded them on resolve so that shouldn’t be much of an issue but the 2ac technically concedes this other da --- so I think you should focus on that. Your strategy for dealing w/ that is pretty good (why the case solves it) but I think could be made a little better if you framed it like this: COIN is net worse for counterterror operations: A. Magnitude – COIn destabilizes Pakistan, only access point of terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons --- even if COIN can kill members of al qaeda in Afghanistan, that’s irrevelant if they have a safe haven just across the border ETC. I’m discounting that that mineral assistance key to afghan econ arg as offense because they havnet demonstrated the link between economic growth and afghani stability. You engage in lots of repetition and other inefficiencies --- you need to work on efficiency Clarity was very good in the 1ar.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Aff (1A) vs. Sebastian/Conor - July 27__=

Comments by Tate
--Good reading of the 1AC. Very clear and nice, consistent rhythm. --I am a little skeptical with reading all four advantages…you don’t want to sacrifice quality of advantages for quantity. I did not really feel that your advantages were “incomplete”, but something just to watch for. I really think the Pakistan instability advantage is pretty repetitive of Afghan instability. I would actually make the Afghan instability longer and include a few cards from the Pakistan instability advantage. --I thought you had good CX when questioned by Conor. --Good CX of the 1NC – give him a bit more time to answer questions. :) --Overall, good signposting. Try to be tighter with referencing the signposting utilizing 1NC evidence as the structure on the case debate. --Case coverage was good but we want to continue to work on getting deeper/more sophisticated with case arguments. Utilize 1AC evidence more. Cite more cards by cites and flush out the warrants. --Card your 1AR! :) --You, too, could have kicked an advantage to be a bit more in-depth on other places on the flow. ---Good job picking up on dropped arguments from the block.