Raghav+Kaul

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = - give reasons why not if their IL ev doesn't give a reason - when a card says something different, don't say what it doesn't say, say what it DOES say - impact threshold - we only have to win this one part to win the entire IL removal. So, for example, if we win that one governor says no than they muck up the signal, etc.
 * Debating on: case mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/23 = -Should slow down a touch to help with your stutter, better to get a few things out -Good use of framing issues in the 2AR -I want you to just talk in your speech, be casual and relaxed, I don't want you to get so stressed out. It will help with your speaking substantially
 * Debating on: T Mini Debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**

Date of debate: 6/23 I think this re-do sounded clear (based on Dylan's comments from initial speech above). You need to do a better job of framing the 2AR - I think a good argument to make is that the inclusion of military infrastructure is a //predictable limit// of the topic - the neg is conflating unlimiting with broadening the scope of the topic within predictable bounds. This should be the way you frame the 2AR.
 * Debating on: re-do 2AR topicality mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2AC - Don't open with impact defense on the DA. You want to put your best arguments first, and this will almost never be the best argument. It's more persuasive to the judge, it's psychologically important, and if you get there with a small amount of time, you'll want your best args at the top. - On the case, I would be most worried about the China alt cause stuff and no modeling. It's probably true, so invest there. 1AR - Efficiency. You're a bit too conversational for this speech. The 1AR doesn't have time for the rhetorical flourishes. You take a long time on the case impact stuff. Could blow through that more quickly. - On modeling, I would really emphasize the economics a bit more. Making a more efficient program cost-effective could spur MANY people to adopt it. - The block doesn't really answer the Miller evidence, so while you definitely want to clearly extend it and jump up and down about it a little bit, you don't need to re-explain it in such detail. Let the 2AR do that. - You wouldn't really have this much time on the DA in a debate with full speech times. A lot of the stuff you say on the link turn is really great, but you would probably need to prioritize more. 2AR - The opening of the speech is a little bit scattered. You're kind of just doing the 'comparison of huge impacts' thing without really engaging how they relate. - There's a few places on the case where you respond to their argument, but don't really say a whole lot. - This is a good example of what happens when you put your impact defense first. You opened the speech with it and had to spin your wheels a bit there. But the real arguments you want to go for are the link turn and uniqueness args. - You do a nice job explaining the link turn, but could be a lot more clear about identifying how this debate has gone. You want to aggressively push this, given the 2NR didn't say much here. - On the uniqueness stuff, you talk about the politics of it, but end up spinning your wheels a lot here. Try to focus on clear thesis statements to organize your thoughts.
 * Debating on: DA mini debate**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/28 = -Organize the 1AR better, clearly label the solvency deficit args so that they are clear and distinct then make the competition arguments different -Be clear about what you are trying to get out of the Perm -Good time allocation and word economy -Not a single stutter! = Date of debate: 6/28 = -make sure to follow the substructure of the 2ac in a clear fashion when answering arguments to maintain clarity -balance your turns case args based upon the internal links you think are the most important in the 1ac -strive to have each indidual word be clear - don't let your speech run together -make sure as the 1ar to keep enough options available for your 2ar
 * Debating on: 1AR CP Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on:CPs**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/2 = 2AC: I think you read some cards unnecessarily on case – you spend nearly 4 minutes on it but also drop some of the 1NC arguments. You should be extending 1AC evidence to answer arguments like “warming not real” – if you can effectively answer 1NC case arguments with the 1AC, you should. It will save you time and help you be more efficient. You get to Elections with 40 seconds left when there are only 3 off-case arguments. You need to allocate your time better, but if you are time-pressed, you need to be more selective with arguments. Read carded offense on Elections rather than multiple non-unique cards. I had a tough time following your transition between arguments and flows – try to pause and/or say “next” or “and” to make it easier. Flag when you are moving to a new piece of paper more clearly. You should also focus on clarity over trying to read quickly. Particularly in the last few minutes of your speech, I can’t understand much of what you’re saying.
 * Debating on: Practice Debate A**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

2AR: You need an overview. Your first arguments are all about why the US is falling behind in competitiveness… this is the neg’s argument about why the plan is bad and triggers protectionist policies. You need to do line-by-line in the 2AR – it’s tough for me to follow some of your arguments – try to reference Tyler’s 2NR arguments. I think you also need to explain this distinction between “overall competitiveness” and your aff’s “one instance of competitiveness” – I think your 1AC impact cards are just about overall economic competitiveness.

Warming flow: This flow isn’t covered too well by the 2NR, but you need to respond to the biodiversity argument extend on the ag turn. I’m not sure why you are extending “warming is real” at the top of the 2AR – the yes/no debate isn’t extended in the 2NR. Extend a reason why warming is bad. = Date of debate: 7/2 = You included a nice impact overview at the top of your 2AR - this is a definite improvement from earlier! It enabled you to contextualize the remaining two pieces of paper in the debate and explain why HSR is the only internal link to extinction. Since there is no kritik or counter plan, a smart argument to add would be: "If you think we make the status quo even a little better, you should vote aff because...."
 * Debating on: REDO 2AR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

On the warming debate you should make an argument about why it's systemic and a warrant about why that is why it outweighs the war impacts on the trade DA. I also think you do a nice job of including author indicts in your redo - you spend more time on the warming flow which is a definite improvement from before because it's the one impact the DA can't solve for.

= Date of debate: 7/6 = -If he's gonna do util he should do util, or you should. If the impact debate is on the case, don't mix it on the DA -Don't read rando new terminal impacts v. a K team, pick one and build it up. Only read stuff that it would turn the case -Do the positive negative peace debate in one place -Do more of that evidence comparison and tearing down theirs
 * Debating on: 1NR Redo from Practice Debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 = 2AC - You can save some time on case by eliminating the overview-type things, especially on inherency - you make your points which are already enough to answer the inherency arguments, but then cross apply it like three more times answering it line-by-line; should only have to do one of those. That way you can extend the Africa advantage. Also if you're really going to just concede the advantage, you should at least do it strategically/pick an argument to concede so that they can't spin it later, and it gives you more credibility.
 * Debating on: DDW SARR R1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Jackie**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 =
 * Debating on: Round 2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Yamamura**
 * Comments:**
 * You could do a little bit better job delineating between tags and authors and cards. Definitely had some troubles with the transitions because you use a very similar tone for all of the above category. You also had two minutes left in your 1NC, so I would read more cards, whether on the case or the CP. Thought the 1NR on politics was pretty good. Might want to be a little bit better about grouping parts of the debate so you aren't too top heavy. ||

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