Adhitya+Ganesh

toc = Date of debate: 6/21 = You could slow down a little bit – but your inflection and reading skills are very good. 2ac Your general reading skills and use of inflection are very nice. You seem to be itching to go fast, but don't worry about that for now. Slow down to conversational speed, especially for un-timed mini-debates. When you quoted your opponent's evidence, you did it REALLY fast, so I'm not quite sure what you were quoting. Let it sink in for the judge so you can better explain why that part of the evidence was sub-par. Good explanation of the threshold with which you need to solve. Remember – there’s an argument to be had that it doesn’t have to be the best rail system ever, just boost competitiveness, so that advantage might not be as “solvency dependent” as some others. Sometimes, you only referred to an argument by the author of the evidence. Sometimes, if everyone knows a very popular card, that can make sense, but you want to reference what the actual argument is, too. You pointed out that an argument was “dropped by the negative” – parse out the REASON this is good for you. What does it mean when someone drops a piece of evidence? Is it automatically true? Do you win the whole debate? Don't just say “my opponent doesn’t provide any evidence for this claim, so it shouldn’t be counted” – it’s fine to point out that the lack of evidence damages the argument, but use it to REINFORCE your best argument. If they don't have evidence to refute your evidence, why is your evidence so awesome?! Good 1AR impact analysis. = Date of debate: 6/23 = I like how you indicted the negative’s source. You should also focus on why your interpretation is better for debate. Good job not wasting time with a we meet argument. Good job saying you don’t unlimit. Say reasonability instead of topicality isn’t a voting issue.
 * Debating on: Case Clash**
 * Instructor/commentator: Crowe**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: Topicality**
 * Instructor/commentator: Kernoff**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/27 = 2NR -- always start out the 2NR on the DA with an offensive argument. Your impact assessment is somewhat lacking in warrants, which is strange because the rest of the speech is generally good about including warrants. You should respond to the 1AR's historical example for why spending's good for the economy.
 * Debating on: Spending DA**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** 2NC -- Good speech. When answering 2AC arguments, always start by extending your 1NC evidence on that issue (e.g. you've already read a uniqueness card to answer the 2AC nonunique). You could do your impact work at the top. Always include warrants -- you need to explain WHY loss of fiscal discipline hurts the economy.

= Date of debate: 6/28 = You should SLOW DOWN - you start off trying to read really fast, but your speed is inconsistent and you slow down a ton when not reading cards. It's better to read a little slower but be consistent in your speaking pattern than to race through cards. You do a good job of keeping the Federalism DA and States CP flows distinct - you should do impact calculus on the DA. Why does Federalism modeling outweigh/turn the aff? You should set up the neg block so that you can theoretically go for the DA without the CP (If you're getting hosed on that debate). Make more specific arguments about why the CP can solve HSR rather than more general arguments about why the States can solve transportation infrastructure.
 * Debating on: CP Mini Debate 2NC**
 * Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate:6/25 = -good job playing defense to the other sides arguments using previous discussions -try to balance between refuting the other sides argument and making your own - you have to have both halves
 * Debating on:Theory**
 * Instructor/commentator:Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 6/30 = 2NC - You assert a lot of things that need to be justified more. Why is the search for the best policy key to debate, why is reciprocity impossible, etc,? - You fiddle with things a lot and have a lot of excess movement. Try to be a little more low key with the physical movements so the judge can focus on the arguments. - I don't think the 'the CP is not topical, so it's neg ground' argument makes sense. Even CPs should be not topical, it doesn't mean all non-topical things are neg ground.
 * Debating on: 50 state fiat**
 * Instructor/commentator: Charles**
 * Comments:**

2AR - First off, they say that they need to have generic arguments in order for competitive equity, but what you need to understand is... - You're debating this wholly at the level of generalities. There is only a bare reference to the fact that this is the states CP in the speech. It's very good at that level, but it's not that helpful because it just sounds like a generic speech about whether neg CPs should be limited. = = = Date of debate: 6/30 =
 * Debating on: K Mini Debate 2NC/2NR**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Need to explain exactly what it is about the Aff's form of knowledge production that makes it suspect, contextualize your impacts**
 * -Good use of your 1NC evidence and going line by line in the 2NC**
 * -Pick up your papers and don't lean over!**
 * -Don't summarize the cards after you read them in the 2NC**
 * -Good job extending each chunk of the K, I'd like you to discuss the alternative a bit more though**
 * -Trying down reading backwards drill, it will help you track along the cards without having to use your finger or stopping and starting**


 * 2NR:**
 * -Begin with your best offensive argument and then deal with the line by line. I'd like to hear clearly how you win this debate within the first 30 seconds of the speech**
 * -Better job signposting in this speech, better job referring to your evidence by citation and warrant**
 * -Good job explaining the links as "DAs" to the perm**

= Date of debate: 6/30 = Good speech - responding to the aff arguments well, and you are doing very good impact calculus. link debate/ epistemology claims could be a little bit more specific- instead of just claiming that scientists often change their mind because they are paid off, or claiming that banks are capitalist, explain what it is about the aff's mechanism, or the aff's deployment of banks that make the aff susceptible to your link arguments. Explain the alternative a little bit further. Your ethical obligation arguments make a lot of sense, but I think you need to explain them in the context of an alternative. What does it mean for the judge to vote neg? = Date of debate: 7/2 =
 * Debating on: K Mini Debate 2NC Redo**
 * Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro**
 * Comments:**
 * Debating on: Practice Debate #1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Quigley**
 * Comments:**
 * -Good 2AC, need to watch your time and make sure you dont get too top heavy**
 * -I would defend competitiveness and heg in the 2AR as an impact turn to the K**


 * Redo:**
 * -Good job framing the impacts first, thats the right move and you did a good job developing them**
 * -Need to do more evidence comparison, not just extending your impacts but tearing down their evidence**
 * -Sit more on the 2NR's framing issues on the K**
 * -Need "even if" statements on the impact debate of the K**

= Date of debate: 7/6 = 1NC cross-ex – let Kavi answer the questions. 2NC – your overview is kind of repetitive and doesn’t get you very far aside from the framework argument. You keep saying the aff is “drenched in capitalism” without a lot of good explanation as to why. Don’t randomly extend the link and say that they dropped it – instead, extend it in response to the permutation and explain why the permutation still links. The perm’s not severance, if anything it’s intrinsic because it adds the element of time (doing the alt after the plan) – your explanation of the perm being severance doesn’t make much sense. You drop all of the impact turns at the bottom of the 2AC. You really need to answer those. Urban sprawl DA – generally pretty good, but you answer the arguments out of order. I am also not sure it’s worth extending this DA. You have almost no case arguments in the block, so there’s no scenario in which you can go for the urban sprawl DA as offense. 2NR – Better than the 2NC in a lot of ways (like applying the link argument to the perm). Still need a lot more warranted explanation rather than repeating buzzwords. Don’t call me (or anyone) “judge.”
 * Debating on: practice debate B**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:** 1AC cross-ex – generally good questions, but try not to angle for a “gotcha” moment.
 * For your re-do – Re-give the 2NC. Re-write your overview so that it’s more efficient, less repetitive, and actually explains why the aff is “drenched in capitalism.” Read your Santos impact evidence on the overview, rather than randomly on the line-by-line. Thenm answer __all__ of the arguments on the cap K including the impact turns. Extend some case arguments instead of the urban sprawl DA.

Re-do -- much, much better! Much more explanation and less reliance on buzzwords. You could still do a bit more to explain some things -- specifically, how capitalism causes war, and how the alternative overcomes the entrenchment of capitalism (answering the Gibson evidence). You could be repeating less of the aff's arguments on the case; try to limit your description of their argument to 3 words or fewer. Also try to read some more evidence on case.

= Date of debate: 7/6 = I really like your aff and the system impacts that you access, I think it has good potential. Continue to build on it by adding some pre-fiat voters and some more clearly structured advantages that help you access/clarify your deontological impacts and in round/prefiat impacts. Strategically in this round, you need to claim that the advances against racism in the SQ are due to specific moments when policy makers adopted a deontological mindset. Perhaps the Supreme Court passing Brown V Board is a good example of ignoring the consequentialist impacts (riots in the streets, deaths due to violence, etc) and choosing the deontological impacts of little girls going to school would help you refute the claims of the neg that SQ is solving racism. You should also push from the 1AC for a more clear weighing mechanism between bio life and Quality of life. You do not want to be coming from behind on this issue. Don’t use terms like “colored people” – make a choice that matches your authors of which terms you use and be ready to defend your language. In a rebuttal redo of the 1AR, you should manage your time to do an effective job of winning the framework, and taking out the CP by linking it to the politics disad. You and your partner should coordinate more between the 2AC and 1AR so that the arguments you need to win are set up in the 2AC more solidly. Regarding speaker style – you do a nice job of reading the 1AC and making it dynamic with good eye contact. Do more discrete and respectful communication with your partner throughout the round. It hurts your credibility to shhh each other and interrupt repeatedly. – This round has 5 strategic realms for you to keep in mind at all times: 1. Aff plan 2. CP 3. Perm 4. Status Quo 5. Prefiat – Realm of the Real, In Round, Education of the debaters in the room These issues need to be distinctly addressed in CX and on the flow throughout the round. When you let them blur you are losing strategic advantages.
 * Debating on: Aff Mass Trans with Racism Adv **
 * Instructor/commentator: Solice **
 * Comments: **

= Date of debate: 7/7 = Good 1AC, very clear, and good job tilting the podium so the judge can see you as well. Good cross-examination questions, but try to ask your questions in a more argumentative matter. So instead of asking… “doesn’t your card prove that the transportation sector doesn’t work” to which she can respond “no,” try phrasing your question about the substance of the warrants of their cards. i.e. does your card assume massive racial segregation as a result of transportation. Your 1ar was very good and fast and good job extending enough arguments to give the 2ar flexibility. Also, while your author and studies indicts are effective, be sure to explain the warrant as well for why stimulus is good, or why economic collapse wouldn’t cause war.
 * Debating on: Practice Round D **
 * Instructor/commentator: Yamamura **
 * Comments: **

= Date of debate: 7/9 = -good pace and projection -try not to rock back and forth as you speak -make sure to put case first in your 1ar in case you run short on time -give your 2AR options, extend multiple possible strategies against each argument if possible -good work impacting the case, but make sure to make the impacts competitive through comparison with the neg's specific impacts
 * Debating on: Debate #1**
 * Instructor/commentator: Baker**
 * Comments:**

= Date of debate: 7/9 = 2NC – your speech generally needs more warrants. I need more work on the link and impact level; the link should be more than just "their authors have a profit motive." Your evidence has more warrants than that. You need to be clearer about what it means to “do capitalism” in the context of the perm. It would help to make arguments about all of the advantages, not just oil. 2NR - again you need to extend warrants – why are US-Russian relations important? Why do they solve nuclear war? Why do the states solve? T – you need to respond to the one 1AR argument extended, which is that vehicles are part of transportation infrastructure. Kavi’s answer in the 1NR is that they don’t meet this interpretation because the plan funds fueling stations, not vehicles. That’s an easy way to win on T. I can extrapolate this argument from your rant about effects topicality, but it needs to be explicit.
 * Debating on: Debate #2**
 * Instructor/commentator: Mikaela**
 * Comments:**

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