DhaTah

=__**2ac** Politics Drill - July 13__= Comments by Matt

good clarity keep working on speed good posture make fewer non-unique arguments (you read three n/u cards...out of 5 cards total) - and probably add more impact takeouts good decision to include link turns

=__Politics Block Extension Speech - July 15__=

Comments by Tara
--I heart the fact that you had an impact calculus to this speech. I actually thought the overview was pretty on target. You are using the correct buzzwords and you are making smart arguments. My only comment is that we really need to work on word efficiency. For example, instead of saying “moving on to why we turn the case”, just state “and, turns back the case”. Your argument about warming --> hostility is good, but try to shorten that up. --You are very clear to follow…you are clearly signposting, but the signposting is a bit wordy. Instead of “Now on to the three uniqueness cards that the 2AC read”, just say “Now, the uniqueness debate – group it”. I am glad that you grouped the uniqueness debate, though :). --Does the Aff read impact indicts? You stated “now I am going to read some new impacts”. You don’t need to introduce that you are doing that. If the 2AC read impact indicts, sprinkle the new impact cards in that debate. If they don’t, read the impact cards at the bottom after you extend the 1NC impact card from the shell by cite.  --Keep your arguments in order…you read uniqueness, some impact cards, and then went back to uniqueness.  --We did a bit of this speech again – I had him shorten up the impact calculus (which was a very smart overview to start with…it was just long) and I had him start the uniqueness debate with shortening up his sign posting. The part we redid was great!  --Good to point out that the link turn states that the card may not prove the opposite is true – the debate “lingo” is that the card is not reverse-causal. --It was clear that we have been listening to some of the tips given in lab!

= __Practice Debate #1 - July 20__ = Comments Peyton - Good diversity of args etc. on T - but predictability about the resolution doesn't make sense, it's about definition etc. - Give a roadmap - Good use of impact comparisons - can make shorter/more of arg, also not "we turn case" on DA's - access, prereq etc. -- So analytics are frontloaded like arguments. - Careful not to slur through tags - Need a little more time on case - I like overview style of 2AR but should have specific args too in terms of what you're extending - no need to go quite so slow - Structuring the "voting issues" more would help

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

Comments by Layne Kirshon
1NC: --In cross-x more directly answer questions. There was a time when you said something like “maybe that may be right, but we’ll contest that later.” Be more aggressive! --You could maybe be a bit louder. I had no problem flowing you but being ever so slightly more volumous would make you sound more persuasive 1NR: --Topicality was a bit rambly. You got your points across but in a very round-about way. Have a concise explanation of what your interp is, why it’s good, and why they violate it. That said, you should probably kick this violation b/c it kind of sucks

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

Comments by Jonathan Blough
**1. Rebuttal structure** – The last three speeches were rambling and blippy. I encouraged them to develop more efficient speeches that focus on round-winning arguments **2. Citing evidence** – Cards weren’t cited as well as they could have been (often the reference was just forgotten, humorously after the speaker had criticized the other team for making analytics), and when they were cited people took 10 seconds just to say what the other team’s argument was **3. Making offensive arguments and sounding like you’re making offensive arguments** – No one phrases any good arguments like they’re winning them, and very little of this round consisted of focusing on offense. **4. Be more efficient with your computer** – There were multiple instances where people spent 30 seconds of their speech rummaging through their computer flows and saying nothing Combatic Geoblackmail **2ac –** where are the no voters on topicality? Good job attacking their weak 1nc cards on the politics DA (could have been a wee bit more concise…write some blocks), but where’s the impact calculus? Try not to waste 20 seconds being lost on your flow. When you critique their evidence, spend less time reference the entirety of their argument…you should also write blocks because your off-the-top-of-your-head analytics are a bit wordy and redundant **2ar** – This isn’t enough of a conclusive speech. Your speech is a bit rambling. Go for the round winning arguments and frame them as offensive arguments. Also, you end with 1:40 left…you were not facing a 2nr that demanded such little coverage.
 * Major points for all: **
 * The Sarah Palin award for the words in the English language invented during this round **

=__Practice Debate #4 - Neg (1N) vs. Lydia/Tanner - July 25__=

Comments by Tate
--I think this was a pretty good 1NC. I would have liked a bit more on case (perhaps another card or two on the heg advantage). You have made it very difficult to go for DA/case. You should have spent more time on the heg advantage instead of Afghan instability – the CP solves zero of US hegemony advantage. --Prep time for the 1NR? --Overall, I thought this was a pretty good 1NR. We need to work on structure a bit more – utilize 2AC arguments as your sign-posting. Go off each 2ac answer and give yours. It will help to have your flow up at the podium with you. :) Despite this, you did have a good extension of T. --We need a better overview – explain what your interpretation is, why the Aff violates it, and why your interpretation is better before going on to the line-by-line. --At one point, you said your interpretation allowed “millions of things” like “drones and bases.” This sentence is problematic for two reasons – first, you don’t want to state that you allow for millions of cases – this disproves your limits claim. Second, “drones and bases” are combat forces…I am not sure why they would be included in your interpretation.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Aff (2A) vs. Max/Imanol__=

Comments by Taylor Layton
2AC: Make more perms in 2ac Also – The order should include - case after T or even before T watch out for straight turns on the start da – the no link about distancing from previous Afghanistan policy seems like it could be spun as a link turn MAKE SURE YOU ASK FOR STATUS IN CX

2NR/2AR: Good stories and impact calc but remember to specifically address the warrants and authors of their arguments.

=__Practice Debate #7 - Aff (2A) vs. DLT lab - July 29__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
2AC: Good speech. Your order was incorrect. You need to remember to always place case on top. On case, you should always strive for efficiency. If you don't need to read a card, you shouldn't. When the neg makes an arg, always extend 1AC cards and make logical, analytics. CP: you should start the CP with solvency deficits, or reasons why the CP doesn't solve the case. The use of perms in the speech was good. You need to read cards against the CP. Theory would be helpful. You need offense, offense, offense. DA: good extension of evidence. You need to always start the DA with case outweighs and impact calculus. This should be comparative. You were able to indict their cards and make smart analytics. However, you slowed down significantly. Instead, you should try to get through these args as fast and clear as possible. You need to read more internal links and do more internal link work [reasons why the plan solves heg]. You should always try to turn heg with your other adv [for example, why instability turns heg] TIX: you got here with too little time (43 seconds). You need to always start with case outweighs and impact defense. In the 2AC, you were only able to read 2 UNQ cards. You should always have offense on every flow. Make sure to get there with time. Recognize that politics is a net benefit to the CP. 2AR: Good speech there needs to be more organization in the 2AR. you need use all of your time. START: You should not reread a card when extending it, especially in the 2AR. The straight turn on politics seems a bit new. You need to make sure you are using the same language as the 1AR. Regardless, if you are going for the DA, you should do comparative impact calculus on the impact. Throughout your speech, you kept saying that "start is the biggest impact" but you need to give reasons why this is true. CP: You should identify the solvency deficits and the internal links. You need to have a clear point in the speech where you list the advs the CP doesnt solve for and explain why it doesnt solve.

=__Back to Basics Drill: Minerals DA Block Speech - July 30__=

--Good to utilize 1NC cards. --Try to make an argument that questions the relevancy of 2AC 1 - just because Sweden may have larger deposits is not a reason why China does not want Afghanistan minerals. --Interesting argument about CT troops now having to defend the deposits - probably makes the conflation argument the Aff claims moot if the CT troops have an additional burden. --I am not sure if your "Hard Power key to US hegemony" answers their "we leave CT troops" argument. I am not sure what the relevance of your evidence on this point is.
 * Comments by Tate**
 * --**Good to have an overview for the DA. I am not sure you can outweigh on "threshold"...you may want to reword that as "probability". I would try to employ the phrase in your overview somewhere that "we will control the fastest internal link" to the hegemony debate.