MaxDen

=__**2ac Politics Drill - July 12**__=

** Comments by Peyton **
Good job on the impact debate – in terms of taking out their offense for cap and trade when you’re going for a turn Good volume - will definitely help with your persuasiveness/command of the room I would recommend not just straight impact turning, unless there is a larger strategic reason to. It puts you in a tougher place in later speeches because you have nothingng else to go for Careful about possible tension between the “bad science” mead evidence and your ice age turn.

=__Politics DA Extension Speech - July 14__=

Comments by Tate
--We need to have some type of overview to start this speech. This is uniquely imperative in a world where you are answering an impact turn debate. You have to give the judges a few framing devices by which they should then listen/filter the impact arguments through. --Before starting right in on why the Mead evidence is bad, the first words should be an extension of a 1NC card. You want to control the debate – you do that by first outlining why you are winning, not why their card are bad. - I am glad that we are attempting to extend 1NC cards but we need to do this more specifically than “extend all of the 1NC shell”. --We are actually very quick on reading cards, but we slow way down on the analyticals. It is actually my advice to slow down on the cards a bit until your analyticals catch up. I think you are pushing yourself too fast on the cards which is actually causing you to go slower than you sound. --Highlight your cards down a bit…a few of your warming cards were a bit too long. --Good volume. It allows you to have strong presence in the round. --Watch a few of the nervous habits…we drastically change our posture/footing quite often. --We need to work on eliminating the very large pauses between arguments. It makes you appear a little disorganized and you probably could have read another card at the end if you eliminated the pauses.

=__Practice Debate #1 - Neg (2N) vs. Anjali/Anjay - July 20__=

Comments by Jeffrey Xu
Read more cards in the 2NC, not just analytics. This is particularly important when the 2AC makes scientific claims such as warming not being anthropogenic. You should work on word efficiency. Cut out "but that's not true" after citing their arguments. Be careful how you describe your evidence so that you don't make claims that will come back to hurt you. Saying that the GOP is too weak to stop the Democrats from doing whatever they want jeopardizes your link on politics. Good on doing indicts of their politics evidence, but you need to make more comparative claims. Explain why your evidence is good/better.

=__Practice Debate #2 - Aff (1A) vs. Dhara/Luke - July 21__=

Comments by Layne Kirshon
1AC: --You are clear and quick, but you could afford to slow down a bit. This would prevent stuttering and allow you to use better voice inflection. That said, you sounded really good and were easy to flow. 1AR: --Be a bit smoother. You made your arguments effectively, but between each argument there was this like awkward 5 second pause where it seemed like you were deciding what to extend next. --Choose choose choose! Pick a select few args to extend and really hammer in on them and read more cards =__Practice Debate #3 - Neg (2N) vs. Erik/Anshuman - July 24__=

Comments by Tate
--Great to start the CX immediately after the1AC is done. Those few seconds really increases ethos. --Good line of questioning in CX…try to make eye contact with the judge to establish a connection. --I am not sure I am a fan of how we divided up the block. We only took case, which is okay in a world that you have more offensive arguments. I just don’t think there is enough in the 1NC to justify a 2NC going “all in” on the case debate. I would have taken one of the DAs and one-two case flows. Nothing that you went for in the debate is “winnable” since it is not offensive. --Highlight some of these case extensions down. A few of these cards (especially on terrorism) were really long. One card took about one minute to read…it was a defensive case extension that should have been about a :20 card. --Make sure to extend 1NC case cards by cite. You do this in some places but not in others. --I don’t understand the “scratching” of the Miller card. If you are not going for a defensive argument, you don’t need to proactively “scratch” or kick out of the evidence. --Your only offensive argument in the 1NC is that plan decreases heg. If you are doing eight minutes of case, you should have really done a lot more with this argument. --Explain the argument in the Wall Street Journal 09 evidence – you just extended the card and then did not explain the argument. “Wall Street Journal 09” is not an argument. :) --We need an overview for the 2NR! I am glad we made choices in the 2NR, but you should not keep me guessing as to how you are going to try to win the debate (i.e. Politics DA). You should set up a filter/framework at the start of the 2NR.--We need to be referencing a lot more cards by cite on Politics from the 1NC shell and 1NR overview.

=__Practice Debate #5 - Neg (2N) vs. Dhara\/Luke__=

Comments by Taylor Layton
2NC/1NR: 2nc work on your numbering and lettering – it can help but if it’s too excessive it’s confusing Look at your highlighting too. Extend dropped case arguments quickly – explain the impact and the warrant in a sentence each and move on. When doing cite comparisons make sure to explain the impact – ie prefer our ev it’s the congressional budget office which means it’s more qualified and bipartisan take on our budget problems. 2NR/2AR: Good stories and impact calc but remember to specifically address the warrants and authors of their arguments.