Kirthna+Subash

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = You are going pretty fast for not “spreading.” You sound really good but you could slow down just a tick! About halfway through the first you slowed to a great pace. Good job using a little bit of eye contact but not overdoing it. Very nice organizationally, referencing their specific argument that you’re answering. Sometimes, you’re just making a general argument, though, and we can figure out a few better ways to apply it. Try to avoid saying “here’s another card." It's much better to just say what the purpose of the evidence is (or the tagline) and read it. You can say “additionally” or number your arguments to make them a bit easier to follow. Practice these ordering techniques while the debates are small and you'll be way awesome at it when we do full debates. Very, very good job “extending” your evidence from the 1NC. I would like to see you add maybe one or two more original analytic arguments in your next 1NC! = Date of debate: 6/23 = 2nc: you shouldn't start with reading a card at the top of your overview. Start by explaining your interpretation. Otherwise, your overview had lots of great arguments, but they probably could be moved to the line by line to help you cover everything efficiently int he 3 minute time limit. Focus on emphasizing good signposting and referencing back and forth.
 * Debating on: Case Clash**
 * Instructor/commentator: Crowe**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: T mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments:**

redo 2nc: you did a great job comparing definitions and talking about the expertise of your evidence. You are a bit repetative with summaries with statements like " as you can see, both of these cards say the legal definitions don't include military usage." Limit discussion is good, but try to include a bit more of a case list. Yes multi purpose is possible, but talk about how many different kinds of affs, etc.

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2NR -- Try to start the 2NR with a strong offensive claim (about how economic decline causes nuclear war, for example). Always go in 1AR order to keep the flow organized.
 * Debating on: Spending DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** Good job choosing and applying cards! Make sure to answer all 2AC arguments (and be clear about which one you are answering).

= Date of debate: 6/30 =
 * Debating on: K Mini Debate 2AC/1AR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Pick your papers up so your not leaning over during your speech**
 * -Contextualize your analytic arguments to the aff esp focus more on case outways**
 * -Good speed and succinctness in the 1AR, I want to see you work off the 2AC order and extend and explain the evidence in a systematic manner. It will help you seem less reactive to the things that they are saying and will also help you to remember to extend each card and explain it.**

= Date of debate: 6/29 = 2NR - Awesome job. The main thing to improve would be to turn this into a successful closing speech. It sounds more like a 2NC than anything. You want to use the 2NR to give the judge framing devices. For example, your stuff about the best policy could serve as a useful way to structure the debate. The aff wants us to imagine ourselves to BE the FG, but it's better to think about the debate as citizens who can advocate for all kinds of things, etc. - I think you're doing too much on 'there are lots of agencies' - you might want to reframe this as a 'neg preparation is hard because the aff can pick any tiny case' thing. So yes, the states CP involves more fiat than any single aff, but it's a necessary generic to combat the MANY possible affs. 1AR - Probably a bit too wordy in a few places - it's the 1AR so you need to be super efficient. But on the whole, well done in working through this quickly. - I really like your argument at the end, that the way the fiat of the CP works denies the 'search for the best policy' because the aff loses access to all the real arguments about fed vs. state action. It's a specific problem with the states CP and is a serious challenge to the essence of their argument. - In a few places, you do a bit too much general debating about CP theory, without tying it back to the specifics of the states. Try to always keep it specific.
 * Debating on: 50 state fiat**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 = 1AR on states CP, elections DA, spending DA and case.
 * Debating on: 1AR Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

You do a good job of line-by-line in the 1AR - you can try to do embedded clash in order to be more efficient.

You should explain the 3 perms you reference in the 1AR. I'm not sure extending 3 is the best idea - maybe extend the best one and include an explanation of how it functions. Also make some arguments about why your case outweighs the DA / why the CP can't solve.

You do a good job of extending the 2AC theory arguments - pick a few to "sit" on and explain. Make sure to extend an interpretation and impact to your theory argument.

= Date of debate: 7/2 = You start off at a great speed - try to keep it consistent throughout the speech because you kind of slow down a little. It's not a big issue, but is pretty easily solved by starting out slowly then bringing up the speed to one that you will maintain throughout the speech.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate A (1AC/1AR)**
 * Instructor/commentator: Jackie**
 * Comments:**
 * 1AC -**

Clarity is pretty good - sometimes you stumble on words just a little and go back to re-read them, which you don't have to do. If you ignore the little stuff it'll make your speech flow better, and judges won't pay attention to the small mistakes.

Next time you speak you should try to do it off of a stand - like a chair or upside down trash can, etc. so that you're not all scrunched over the laptop. It'll make you louder plus you'll be able to breathe better.

You have about two and a half minutes left, I would either add some more internal link cards to warming or maybe just a whole new advantage.

These pre-empts at the end of the 1AC kind of make sense for capitalism (assuming you know that they're reading it) but the Obama bad cards don't seem like a good idea. It locks you into answering the elections disad in only one way - impact turning (defending that Romney is good/Obama is bad), instead of giving you more options to either link turn (say that the public likes the plan) OR impact turn in the 2AC.

CX - You should learn the warrants for why the plan is popular, to better answer questions about politics disad - at least be able to make some up, like "people want to fix traffic jams", etc.

Good job answering the off-case arguments; you should re-allocate some time to spend the rest on the case, though. You do a good job extending your case but you can answer the neg's arguments more effectively by referencing their argument, then directly refuting it. You also re-read some cards that were already in the 1AC/2AC, which you don't need to do. Flowing the author names/paying more attention to tags can help with not repeating yourself on those.
 * 1AR -**

You do some great case outweighs analysis and evaluation on the capitalism kritik, but you have to first ensure that you have a case to win (ie, by spending more time on it and making sure that you're addressing all of the negative's arguments made during the block).

= Date of debate:7/6 = 1AC -try to keep your head to the side or above your laptop so your voice isn't blocked by it -when reading quickly, try to minimize the time the break between cards takes you
 * Debating on:Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

CX of the 1AC -try to balance the cross-x of the 1AC, while the 1N can ask questions most of the time it should be primarily the 2N for prep time concerns -avoid open ended questions that aren't for clarification;try to get them to say answers that you are looking for

1NC -try to maintain a consistent pace when reading; don't tense up -also try to get to the case with more time

CX of the 1NC -make sure every question has a possible impact for you in the debate

2AC -don't forget to give an order for your speech -in the 2AC, prioritize based upon the need to access your aff - the order should generally be the case, advocacies (including the k), then disads -good use of theory arguments in the 2ac, but don't forget to check the status of the advocacies before the 2AC -perhaps some more evidence on the states cp

CX of the 2AC -ask fewer clarification questions -pay attention to the other team's answers and generally what's occurring during the cross-x

2NC -you have to concede arguments that make the disad logically impossible in order to kick out of it - just link defense is insufficient -resist the temptation to provide underviews for cards you just read as they are repetitive -give yourself insurance plans, make multiple arguments to respond to the 2ac

1NR -it's ethics, not "ethNics" you're trying to pronounce -make sure to not get bogged down in the theory arguments with the k -try to take more of the disad in your speech

1AR -if the other team properly kicks out of an argument, unless you have a straight turn, you dont need to extend your arguments -try not to conflate theory arguments with substance - theory arguments say what we should and should not be debating but substance relates to the question of whether or not the resolution is good

2NR -don't forget to give an order for your speech -make sure to explicitly kick out of arguments from the block in the 2NR that you aren't going for -spend more time on the permutation debate in the 2NR -its okay to work as a team to give the best rebuttal possible, but make sure to split up parts of the debate before prep and then each write a section with the 2NR taking almost all of the debate

2AR -other than in select instances where theory is your only chance, always try to extend substantive arguments in the 2AR -try to fill all of the time provided -make sure your theory arguments assume the choices made in the 2NR - in this debate, you're going for fifty state fiat bad when the 2NR implicitly kicks the states CP

= Date of debate: 7/6 = - Try to ask more direct questions about specific pieces of evidence or internal links in the 1AC. Some of your questions about the advantages are a bit open-ended and don’t seem like they’re going to be able to get the answers you want for your strategy. - You should also be more aggressive about asking follow-up questions (i.e. your spending question) so you establish links to your arguments and weaknesses in the case before the 1NC is given. - Good job maintaining both speed and emphasis in the 1NC – make sure you aren’t speaking into your laptop. - Good job in cross-x answering questions about the kritik. Try to think of reasons why the states would be able to coordination with Russia and other international bodies beforehand. - I don’t think reading evidence that the plan is politically unpopular/costly gets you anywhere here - Awesome case extension, especially pointing out alternate causalities and contradictions in 1AC evidence. Although your arguments on solvency are very good, you might also want to use your extra time to extend a few pieces of evidence on the other advantages to further mitigate the case. At the least, you need to answer their congestion internal link to the economy/competitiveness more thoroughly. - Very good 2NC explanation of how the counterplan would operate to solve the funding and coordination arguments. You probably don’t need to read so much evidence on the funding question. - On the kritik, try to give specific examples of how security logic impedes their ability to solve their advantages. In the absence of specific evidence about their different representations, you need to do extra work to apply your more generic evidence and explain it in the context of the affirmative. - Give an order before the 2NR. - You should explicitly kick out of the arguments you are not going for at the beginning of the speech – it was a little unclear whether or not you were going for the counterplan at the start. - With the extra time you have left in the 2NR, you should be giving specific examples in their evidence and their speeches of how they exemplify the fear-based politics that security rhetoric inspires. The Russia and Africa advantages seem like particularly good examples of this logic – the idea that if Africans don’t get planes that they’re going to try and acquire nuclear weapons seems to be an example par excellence.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate C**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nick**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:7/6 = -whenever possible try to avoid reading evidence in the 2ar -good execution of the capitalism inevitable debate and the case o/ws debate -make sure all of your arguments pass the why test -don't forget about permutation theory arguments -good use of grouping and simplifying the debate
 * Debating on:Practice Debate Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:7/7 = 1NR: You take the Security K for five minutes, which is an OK division of the neg block, but since you have so much time to prep during the debate, you should be doing a lot more specific line-by-line and impact work. Explain why the alternative solves the aff and what the impact to the kritik is. Why is security logic bad? Is it the root cause of the aff's impacts? Does the alternative solve? There's not really a clear explanation of how the kritik functions vis a vis the aff - have an overview at the top to contextualize it and then move onto the line by line.
 * Debating on PRactice Debate D**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:7/7 =
 * Debating on: Round 3**
 * Instructor/commentator: Yamamura**
 * Comments:**

2A good 2AC. You covered very well. You're very clear and fast, but be sure to answer the 1NC arguments line-by-line before reading a lot of extra cards, so that you can read cards that will get you farther in the debate. Also good job pointing out the contradictory nature of the spending DA and the cap K. Be sure to explain why it is that it matters though. Instead of just saying it's contradictory, you might want to say that one disproves the other one, or make an impact to their contradiction. For the 2AR - I would be sure to extend the arguments that you think are best, instead of extending everything. SPend more time on key arguments, and I think you can focus down the debate a little bit more.

= EXAMPLE = Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!
 * Date of debate: June 23**
 * Debating on: Constellation aff**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole**
 * Comments**: