MicRap

=__2nc Politics Drill - July 14th__= Comments by Matt - work on your speaking style --- focus on enunciating more/clarity. I don't think that you need to be as loud as you are. - clearer line-by-line differentiation --- say "uniqueness - group it" or "2ac 1"

=__Mini-Debate #1 - Aff (2A) vs. Erik/Shreyas - July 16__=

Comments by Tate
--Make sure to signpost and tell judge which position you are on. Start speech with “Politics” and then “1”. --We need to slow down a bit on card reading. We are actually slower than we sound…pushing ourselves to be faster than we are means (a) we stumble over more words actually slowing us down and (b) we lose some clarity.-- --You don’t need to preview where you are going in the 2AC when you are on the same position…avoid saying “now on to the impacts”…2ACs, while on one off-case” should just be “1, 2, 3” or “1, and, and, next, and”.\ --It is great to impact turn a DA but you need to play defense on the original 1NC impact…for example, we have an Ice Age turn but we have not taken out the Neg’s claims that warming leads to extinction. --Happy face for you for including discussion from the DA theory lecture (analytical on the impact card on ABL DA). :)

=__Mini-Debate #2 - Neg (1N) vs. Konstantine/Fri - July 17__=

Comments by Vinay Sridharan
Yays for All: -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! Mike: You try and make a couple of impac calc args but dont wrrnt them. Why is US-Russia war the biggest impact? You also seem to misunderstand some part of this DA or at least, dont articulate it to me in a way that makes sense. The DA argues not that withdrawal COSTS money but that it FREES UP money that goes towards the ABL. Your first analytic at the top of the 1nr seems to argue the opposite way. There are couple of args on the bottom that are dropped --- you just need to read a card on the money will be spent on ABL, more clearly explain the link, and then answer impact is empirically denied (probably with some arg like this scenario is at unique risk of escalation because Russia will feel vulnerable when we have the capacity to shoot down their missiles, resulting in pre-emptive strikes and warfare). You need to work a little bit on enunciating --- pen drill, etc. should help.

=__Practice Debate #1 - Aff (2A) 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 2ac Get more familiar with your 2ac blocks. You sound like you’re reading them for the first time and you slur some of your words together. Clear enunciation would help you be faster. There is no need to do underviews. They’re redundant and waste time. Plus they make you say words like “basically”, which are effectively superfluous filler. Reference your authors more. Saying “Osama wants nukes, it will destroy the world” isn’t as good a reference as you could make. I don’t know if impact turning is your only option (if it isn’t, I would advise against it here as you don’t spend much time on it and the block can probably spread the heck out of you on this), but nonetheless you need more defense…impact defense/mitigants would be helpful 2ac C-X The 2a loves the world “basically”. I sense a water gun drill. 2nc C-X Actually, kids, the Senate has voted 100-0 a few times. Be careful about what you say “never happens” 2ar And, as expected, the 2ar starts with “basically, they conceded”. A lot of the analysis in this speech is new. Make sure to collaborate with the 1ar so stuff like this is stated earlier You say “don’t let them get away with this” or “disregard this” a lot, but you never clarify what that means. If I am not going to vote for the neg on certain arguments, I have to have something on the aff to prefer; I as a judge cannot vote for nothing, and you haven’t told me which way presumption goes. You like saying “100% chance” a lot. Why is pointing out that they made the wrong citation on one of your cards relevant for the 2ar? This is not a round-winning argument.

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

Comments by Tate
--Good, clear roadmap. It did take you quite a while to get the 1NC started. Try to eliminate some of that time that is really prep time but no one is counting it. --Pretty quick and fairly clear (good on tags). I think we still may be pushing ourselves too hard to go faster than we should. We need to be taking more air into our lungs to help our breathing as well as continue to do endurance drills. --Gold star for listening in lab about the importance of case debate! Make sure to read arguments on the Heg advantage that don’t also take out the impact to your DA. Probably more important to have gotten to Afghanistan instability advantage with more time. --Okay cross-x. I would like to see you utilize more follow-ups. Utilize his answers to create more specific questions on the same topic. --Good block division – good division of labor. --I would have loved to have seen an overview on T…before going to the line-by-line, paint a picture of what your “fence” looks like – what is your interpretation? Why is the Aff not inside your interpretation? Case list? --Pretty good line-by-line here. You did a good job going in 2AC order. --Good to point out that the Aff did not address limits. Prepare a short block as to why limits > predictability. --I think we need more on Topicality- you need a case list. Prepare a case list that the Aff interpretation would allow. Talk about why competing interpretations is the framework to evaluate the debate. --I thought your discussion on the case debate was pretty good. I am glad that you read some new cards to extend your arguments on case.

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

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Put the off-case positions in the 1NC before the on-case. In the 1NR, your line by line was good through the T flow. Try to work on doing more work on the standards. Give a case list for your interpretation and make sure you are on point in answering their main offense, which is that most Middle East cases focus on combat forces. You need a reason why allowing cases that reduce DUBs or carpet bombing is worse than limiting out combat cases. You sorta lost the line by line when you go to the disads. The ABL disad was straight turned, so you if you want to kick it you have to read defense against your turns. I would have suggested that Shreyas take this in the 2NC since he had extra time. On politics, you need to read more cards on the link debate, and you need to do evidence comparison. You should have also done impact calc and answered the aff arguments about how the case accessed the Russia impact__.__

=__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. -I think you start trying to go too fast --- start slower -You need to work a bit on enunciation --- do a couple of pen drill type speaking drills. -Read a specific link about Afghanistan --- not that generic logan card about US grand strategy --- arguably, that gives the aff a link turn because that card says “hegemony is popular” so if the plan solves hegemony, wouldn’t the plan be popular? One could also argue that our invasion of Afghanistan isn’t synonymous with the pursuit of hegemony. -You should try and make sure you understand exactly what your CP does --- don’t just mention global coordination in the abstract -- -cite to the specific actions your ev says would result from the CP, like development assistance to help countries curb radicalization, reforms to transit systems to improve terrorist interdiction efforts, etc. -You need a qual for this Butler person on the START DA  -You need to highlight the part of the Rogers ev on the ABL DA that’s actually talking about the ABL --- else the impact card is almost incoherent.-Your C-X is good but try to make sure you have your questions on hand so you aren’t literally looking around for them. You want to be able to keep the C-X moving rapidly. 1nr: -It’s good to pro-dict your ev but its only really offensive when you indict theirs --- our author is qualled isn’t enough --- our author is MORE QUALLIFIED than their author is really good --- and the way ot imacpt that on a T debate is with a predictability type of argument --- your definition’s the only one contextual to the topic so it’s the only way the neg should be prepared to debate. -If going for T, need a place to clearly extend and explain your standards and compare them against their standards like overlimits --- it’s the same as how you should always do impac calc while going for a DA. -Spend some more time on the CP explaining why it solves the aff – you can make an arg for why it solves hegemony too because it enables multilateral cooperation, presumably enhancing soft power, and does things like extend development assistance to Pakistan which could make that area more stable. Use a mix of the stuff your ev hints at along with clever analytics. -Have cards left over – you should never have time left over which you need to use to rant. -START needs impact calculus at the top. -Need to do more work on the link debate --- indicting their ev, reading more specific links, etc.
 * Yays for all: **
 * General Suggestions for all: **
 * 1nc: **

=__ Back to Basics Drill: Minerals DA 2AC - July 30 __=

Comments by Tate
--Thanks for volunteering to read your 2AC block! --I like the fact that you tried to apply evidence from a variety of files at your disposal since the specific Minerals DA did not have much for the Aff. --I think the first card is fine, but I don't think you will gain much traction. I would retag to say "Afghanistan Mineral deposits overexaggerated." --Did we read an impact turn to hegemony (the last two cards)? I don't think we can read Hegemony Bad with our Aff. --Watch being repetitive - I am glad that you made a "no link - we don't withdraw all troops" argument. However, both 2AC 2 and 5 are that argument. I don't think you need 2AC 5.

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

Comments by Tate
--Good to have an overview. Explain why COIN is not topical - explain that COIN forces engage in combat related activities. --Good to answer the "we meet" argument but this needs to be impacted - why does the Aff have to meet both parts of the definition? --Your debate on the counter-interpretation was repetitive - you talked about your definition being more qualified and then made a predictability argument that is you are most qualified. --Why are qualifications important? You need to impact that. --I would move the "Topical version of your Aff" argument to the answer the 2AC's argument about aff innovation OR core of the topic. --I would make your reasonability answers a bit stronger - that portion of the debate lacked word efficiency.

=__Practice Debate #9 - Neg (1N) vs. Junior Lab - August 01__=

Comments by Helen Gomez
1NC: Good job. you should be conscience of the position of your laptop and make sure that it does not cover your face. Speaking drills to make you clearer would be beneficial. 1NR T - The overview on T should be an explanation of the abuse in the debate along with an explanation of your interpretation. Good job having a topical version of the aff! You should then compare the interpretation to the counter interpretation. Make args against the counter interpretation that function as small DA. For example, say that their interpretation would make X topical and that is bad because of Y the impact is Z. These are small DAs that make it difficult for the aff to answer. You should then go extend the reasons to prefer your interpretation and the voters. ABL - Start with an overview. It is clear that the 2AC strategy was to impact turn the DA. You should spend as much time on the impact v. impact turn. You should extend your ev, point out the weakness in your opponent's ev and read more impacts.

=__Rebuttal Redo (1NR) from Practice Debate #9 - August 02__=

Comments by Tate
--Good to have an overview. I am glad that you included a topical version of their Affirmative. --I think you did a nice job on the "we meet" debate. --What other Affs do we learn about with your interpretation? Remember, your job is to paint a very specific picture of what the world of debate looks like under your interpretation and under their interpretation. What specific ground did you lose? --If the 2AC conceded your impact on ABL, that is where your overview needs to focus on. You need to do more than just say "we outweigh on magnitude because they did not answer our impact". This needs to be much more specific and blown-up. What is your impact that they dropped? Why does your impact trump theirs? --Avoid just answering 2AC arguments with analyticals and then just reading a load of cards at the bottom. Cards should be integrated on the line-by-line.