Debating on: T mini debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2nc: A bit disorganized. That's likely because its the first minidebate on this subject, but is something to watch for as we keep working.
Try not to read so many cards. With only 3 minutes in this 2nc, you need to do a bit more spinning and bit less card reading. Maybe one card that says its exclusive, but the others seem unnecessary.
Your Definition of Its is great, but try to make it against the 2ac 3 where he says "its" has to be its own investment.
You are good about following the logical story, but less good about answering each 2ac argument specifically. You should reference each argument and make sure you answer that directly.
Redo of 2nc:
Your explanation of the interp was good. Everything else you did after that belngs ont he line by long. No need to read those two cards in the overview. Also, you still read 2 cards right at the top which is probably too many
WHen you stop reading a card, you can mark the card (if you're debating paper) or say " end here" if you're debating paperless. That's way faster then " i'm ending the card right here."
Your CI for its is good, but it should be in response to a 2ac argument.
In general, I think you're just lacking/forgetting to reference 2ac arguments as you answer them. You do it inconsistently.
We had a bit of discussion about how to do line by line. It seems like you believe there is something between an overview and line by line, but i'm not sure what it would be. Try to redo this speech again tonight with the person on dorm duty.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 2NC CP Mini Debate Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
You need to have an impact overview on the top of the Federalism DA. You should explain why the impact outweighs/turns the aff. If you do a good job in the neg block on the DA, then you can give yourself more options for the 2NR. You should do more line-by-line as well - you drop some arguments at the bottom of the flow that you need to answer on the CP.
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Security K Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: I don't think "utopian fiat good" is a very good argument. Better just to win that the alternative doesn't require utopian fiat.
Your speech generally needs some more warrants... when you make link arguments, explain why/how the plan links, why/how the perm also links/doesn't avoid them. Also explain how the alternative functions. In the 2NC, you don't usually need to hard number every argument (as in 1-8), but reference the 2AC argument and number within each section.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: practice debate #1 Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments:Need to be more organized for the 1AR. You have a lot of good arguments but it’s too scattered. Extend your economy advantage – it hasn’t really been answered in the block ***For your redo – pick a few 2AC arguments on each off case that you want to extend. Prepare these arguments with solid explanations and extensions of your evidence. Make sure to extend a solvency deficit on the CP. Explain how the permutation shields the link to politics. Also cut down the amount of time you spend on case, without compromising your good analysis.
Date of debate:7/6
Debating on:Practice Debate B Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
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
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
Debating on: Practice Debate C Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
Be sure not to participate too much in 1AC cross-ex. You should be sure to let your partner allow most of the questions during her cross-ex. Same goes for the 1AR. Try not to hover over your partner for the speech. If there are a few arguments you need her to make, tell her during prep time, or if absolutely necessary during the round.
2AC – Great job being clear and covering so many off-case arguments and advantages well.
Don’t be afraid to take a little bit more prep time before the 2AC to have your order ready and have all of your answers to off-case positions. It’s definitely better to take time then to set a good foundation for the rest of the round than hurry yourself and forget to answer a disadvantage.
Consider using a couple more of your 1AC cards to support your 2AC. You have a 1AC for a reason – so that you can cite it and respond to negative arguments. For example, when the negative only reads a CP text in the 1NC, you might want to utilize the federal key warrants in the 1AC you have instead of reading a host of new cards.
I really liked your decision to kick one of your advantages – but be sure to explicitly say what arguments you are conceding so the other team cannot try to turn the advantage.
During 2NC cross-ex, I would err away from asking questions about whether she did or did not answer your 2AC arguments… because if she discovers that she dropped an argument as a result of your question, she can just have the 1NR answer the argument.
2AR – I think you did a good job deciding to leverage your case against the kritik, but it might be helpful to articulate more of an impact. What is the impact of a terrorism attack, and how does that interact with the capitalism kritik.
If you are going to go for the framework argument, you should be sure to explain them a little bit earlier in the debate, why it is that kritik debate is less educational than policy debate.
Date of debate:7/6
Debating on:Practice Debate Redo Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-don't forget the power of try or die as an impact argument
-work on pronouncing key terms for the sake of speed if nothing else - try using online dictionarys that speak the word to you for difficult terms
-good job breaking the debate into part, but try to follow the line by line of previous speeches
-make sure to argue how the k implicates the affirmatives specific advantage
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: practice debate D Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
1NC
- The Prizes CP makes zero sense against this aff. The entire point of the aff is that there needs to be a big money infusion
- Your 'spending DA' was one card. That is not an argument. You need to read the entire argument.
- You're trying to read WAY WAY too much. You read six off-case positions but have nothing on the case. And given that your CP doesn't solve the case, you're basically conceding the whole thing
CX
- You need to be able to answer questions when they are asked. You consistently are shuffling around looking for the evidence - you need to be able to answer simple questions like 'why is political capital theory true'?
- When you're asking questions, you need to prepare more. All of your questions were purely clarifications and obviously not relevant to the debate.
1NR
- You need to start out slower. You're packing all of your energy into the first 10 seconds - it just makes it hard to follow.
- I have no idea what your opening set of argument (impact stuff) is supposed to respond to
- Your answers to the perm completely misunderstand the nature of the argument. Your answers PROVE their arguments. They are not trying to escape capitalism - they're trying to demonstrate that your absolute position is bad.
- You spend about 45 seconds (maybe more!) talking about severance. This should at most be about 5 seconds of your speech.
- Your 'role of the ballot' arguments are the same as the framework. I don't really understand how this is relevant. You need to cut this part out and specifically answer their permutation arguments.
Re-do
- I still think all of this impact stuff on the framework is misplaced. You can make the argument, but you should do the impact work ON the actual impact arguments.
- You also still need to answer the framework. Your only answer now is that the plan is net worse, but there's a serious uniqueness problem here.
- Your answers the first perm aren't really any more direct. You're still answering this like it was a CP perm. But you need to answer the ARGUMENT of the perm, which is that a transition away from capitalism will be bloody and violent. This clearly disproves your claim that they didn't answer the alt.
- Your answers to the second perm are not at ALL connected. Their argument is that your monolithic portrayal of capitalism as all-encompassing makes it harder to resist. This proves that your claim that 'only a total resistance to capitalism' can succeed is a bad way of thinking about it. Your only prove that you link, not that there is an answer.
- About three minutes into the speech, you say 'now to the line by line.' What in the world were you talking about before? You should answer the aff arguments in order!
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate E Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
CX: You should let Joanna CX the 1NC while you prep for the 2AC.
2AC: You should have your 2AC blocks written in advance and make sure to carry them with you at all times. Your partner can't help you prepare during the 2AC because she needs to be flowing the 2AC! The amount of time you took before giving the speech was egregious. If this weren't a practice round, I definitely would have deducted some more of your prep time for this. Since you knew the whole 1NC before the debate started, you should have been ready to go very quickly. Don't put the case last! Your answers on the kritik are pretty good. It's definitely a good idea to make a conditionality argument, although it's too long for the 2AC. Say more on the CP than conditionality and perm - links to net benefit, doesn't solve, etc. You need to go line-by-line on the case.
1AR: You need to be flowing! Your 2AR will be new unless you have a flow of what was in the 1AR. Also, let Joanna speak. You should need to interrupt her maybe once in the entire speech.
2AR: You are definitely winning that you get to weigh the impacts of your affirmative. Spend more time explaining why your impacts outweigh. You need to respond to some important arguments that the 2NR made, like the argument that the alternative solves the case and the affirmative case is based on lies and misinformation. Good explanation of the apocalypse argument. I'm a big fan of analytical arguments, but this argument really needs a card to pack more punch. Explain why the perm is better than the alternative alone. The capitalism good arguments were not in the 1AR so they are new.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round 2 Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Don’t CX the 1NC – you need to be prepping for the 2AC…
You should not have only half your speech and rely on your partner for so many arguments. You also need to come prepared with a way to transfer speeches in the event that the internet doesn’t work.
2AC – Don’t put case on the bottom of your order! Put it after T. Your coverage on everything except the cap K is too light – be more even in your time allocation. You need to answer the oil DA read on case.
2AR -- You're in a difficult spot on T, but your approach is still strange -- you don't extend the one 1AR argument, and the way you explain your aff directly links to the 2NR's arguments about effects T. Maybe spend the time on reasonability instead. On states/politics, focus on extending 1AR arguments, explaining the warrants, and winning an impact to the solvency deficit.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 3 Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: I voted Affirmative because the negative did not sufficiently develop any of their positions. On capitalism, I think the Aff wins a combination of the permutation and some of their capitalism good evidence. On elections, the 2NR did not respond to several of the 1AR's specific arguments which would have made it hard to vote on that an the CP. It is also just hard to conceptualize how to make my decision when there a multiple worlds in the 2NR.
Should always do the case first in the 2AC. Never ask the 2NC if she answered something! Then they can still answer it...
Date of debate: 7/10
Debating on: Tournament round #6 Instructor/commentator: Aaron Tam Comments: You stutter sometimes and should work on backwards and the a drill Go line by line in the 1nr it felt the like it was all over the place it should be more organized
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
Date of debate: 6/21/12
Debating on: High speed rail aff Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Good first speech! Strong explanations of evidence.
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23 Debating on: Constellation aff Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!
Table of Contents
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T mini debateInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2nc: A bit disorganized. That's likely because its the first minidebate on this subject, but is something to watch for as we keep working.
Try not to read so many cards. With only 3 minutes in this 2nc, you need to do a bit more spinning and bit less card reading. Maybe one card that says its exclusive, but the others seem unnecessary.
Your Definition of Its is great, but try to make it against the 2ac 3 where he says "its" has to be its own investment.
You are good about following the logical story, but less good about answering each 2ac argument specifically. You should reference each argument and make sure you answer that directly.
Redo of 2nc:
Your explanation of the interp was good. Everything else you did after that belngs ont he line by long. No need to read those two cards in the overview. Also, you still read 2 cards right at the top which is probably too many
WHen you stop reading a card, you can mark the card (if you're debating paper) or say " end here" if you're debating paperless. That's way faster then " i'm ending the card right here."
Your CI for its is good, but it should be in response to a 2ac argument.
In general, I think you're just lacking/forgetting to reference 2ac arguments as you answer them. You do it inconsistently.
We had a bit of discussion about how to do line by line. It seems like you believe there is something between an overview and line by line, but i'm not sure what it would be. Try to redo this speech again tonight with the person on dorm duty.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 2NC CP Mini DebateInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
You need to have an impact overview on the top of the Federalism DA. You should explain why the impact outweighs/turns the aff. If you do a good job in the neg block on the DA, then you can give yourself more options for the 2NR. You should do more line-by-line as well - you drop some arguments at the bottom of the flow that you need to answer on the CP.
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Security KInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: I don't think "utopian fiat good" is a very good argument. Better just to win that the alternative doesn't require utopian fiat.
Your speech generally needs some more warrants... when you make link arguments, explain why/how the plan links, why/how the perm also links/doesn't avoid them. Also explain how the alternative functions. In the 2NC, you don't usually need to hard number every argument (as in 1-8), but reference the 2AC argument and number within each section.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: practice debate #1Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Need to be more organized for the 1AR. You have a lot of good arguments but it’s too scattered.
Extend your economy advantage – it hasn’t really been answered in the block
***For your redo – pick a few 2AC arguments on each off case that you want to extend. Prepare these arguments with solid explanations and extensions of your evidence. Make sure to extend a solvency deficit on the CP. Explain how the permutation shields the link to politics. Also cut down the amount of time you spend on case, without compromising your good analysis.
Date of debate:7/6
Debating on:Practice Debate BInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
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
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
Debating on: Practice Debate CInstructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
Be sure not to participate too much in 1AC cross-ex. You should be sure to let your partner allow most of the questions during her cross-ex. Same goes for the 1AR. Try not to hover over your partner for the speech. If there are a few arguments you need her to make, tell her during prep time, or if absolutely necessary during the round.
2AC – Great job being clear and covering so many off-case arguments and advantages well.
Don’t be afraid to take a little bit more prep time before the 2AC to have your order ready and have all of your answers to off-case positions. It’s definitely better to take time then to set a good foundation for the rest of the round than hurry yourself and forget to answer a disadvantage.
Consider using a couple more of your 1AC cards to support your 2AC. You have a 1AC for a reason – so that you can cite it and respond to negative arguments. For example, when the negative only reads a CP text in the 1NC, you might want to utilize the federal key warrants in the 1AC you have instead of reading a host of new cards.
I really liked your decision to kick one of your advantages – but be sure to explicitly say what arguments you are conceding so the other team cannot try to turn the advantage.
During 2NC cross-ex, I would err away from asking questions about whether she did or did not answer your 2AC arguments… because if she discovers that she dropped an argument as a result of your question, she can just have the 1NR answer the argument.
2AR – I think you did a good job deciding to leverage your case against the kritik, but it might be helpful to articulate more of an impact. What is the impact of a terrorism attack, and how does that interact with the capitalism kritik.
If you are going to go for the framework argument, you should be sure to explain them a little bit earlier in the debate, why it is that kritik debate is less educational than policy debate.
Date of debate:7/6
Debating on:Practice Debate RedoInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-don't forget the power of try or die as an impact argument
-work on pronouncing key terms for the sake of speed if nothing else - try using online dictionarys that speak the word to you for difficult terms
-good job breaking the debate into part, but try to follow the line by line of previous speeches
-make sure to argue how the k implicates the affirmatives specific advantage
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: practice debate DInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
1NC
- The Prizes CP makes zero sense against this aff. The entire point of the aff is that there needs to be a big money infusion
- Your 'spending DA' was one card. That is not an argument. You need to read the entire argument.
- You're trying to read WAY WAY too much. You read six off-case positions but have nothing on the case. And given that your CP doesn't solve the case, you're basically conceding the whole thing
CX
- You need to be able to answer questions when they are asked. You consistently are shuffling around looking for the evidence - you need to be able to answer simple questions like 'why is political capital theory true'?
- When you're asking questions, you need to prepare more. All of your questions were purely clarifications and obviously not relevant to the debate.
1NR
- You need to start out slower. You're packing all of your energy into the first 10 seconds - it just makes it hard to follow.
- I have no idea what your opening set of argument (impact stuff) is supposed to respond to
- Your answers to the perm completely misunderstand the nature of the argument. Your answers PROVE their arguments. They are not trying to escape capitalism - they're trying to demonstrate that your absolute position is bad.
- You spend about 45 seconds (maybe more!) talking about severance. This should at most be about 5 seconds of your speech.
- Your 'role of the ballot' arguments are the same as the framework. I don't really understand how this is relevant. You need to cut this part out and specifically answer their permutation arguments.
Re-do
- I still think all of this impact stuff on the framework is misplaced. You can make the argument, but you should do the impact work ON the actual impact arguments.
- You also still need to answer the framework. Your only answer now is that the plan is net worse, but there's a serious uniqueness problem here.
- Your answers the first perm aren't really any more direct. You're still answering this like it was a CP perm. But you need to answer the ARGUMENT of the perm, which is that a transition away from capitalism will be bloody and violent. This clearly disproves your claim that they didn't answer the alt.
- Your answers to the second perm are not at ALL connected. Their argument is that your monolithic portrayal of capitalism as all-encompassing makes it harder to resist. This proves that your claim that 'only a total resistance to capitalism' can succeed is a bad way of thinking about it. Your only prove that you link, not that there is an answer.
- About three minutes into the speech, you say 'now to the line by line.' What in the world were you talking about before? You should answer the aff arguments in order!
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate EInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
CX: You should let Joanna CX the 1NC while you prep for the 2AC.
2AC: You should have your 2AC blocks written in advance and make sure to carry them with you at all times. Your partner can't help you prepare during the 2AC because she needs to be flowing the 2AC! The amount of time you took before giving the speech was egregious. If this weren't a practice round, I definitely would have deducted some more of your prep time for this. Since you knew the whole 1NC before the debate started, you should have been ready to go very quickly. Don't put the case last! Your answers on the kritik are pretty good. It's definitely a good idea to make a conditionality argument, although it's too long for the 2AC. Say more on the CP than conditionality and perm - links to net benefit, doesn't solve, etc. You need to go line-by-line on the case.
1AR: You need to be flowing! Your 2AR will be new unless you have a flow of what was in the 1AR. Also, let Joanna speak. You should need to interrupt her maybe once in the entire speech.
2AR: You are definitely winning that you get to weigh the impacts of your affirmative. Spend more time explaining why your impacts outweigh. You need to respond to some important arguments that the 2NR made, like the argument that the alternative solves the case and the affirmative case is based on lies and misinformation. Good explanation of the apocalypse argument. I'm a big fan of analytical arguments, but this argument really needs a card to pack more punch. Explain why the perm is better than the alternative alone. The capitalism good arguments were not in the 1AR so they are new.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round 2Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Don’t CX the 1NC – you need to be prepping for the 2AC…
You should not have only half your speech and rely on your partner for so many arguments. You also need to come prepared with a way to transfer speeches in the event that the internet doesn’t work.
2AC – Don’t put case on the bottom of your order! Put it after T. Your coverage on everything except the cap K is too light – be more even in your time allocation. You need to answer the oil DA read on case.
2AR -- You're in a difficult spot on T, but your approach is still strange -- you don't extend the one 1AR argument, and the way you explain your aff directly links to the 2NR's arguments about effects T. Maybe spend the time on reasonability instead. On states/politics, focus on extending 1AR arguments, explaining the warrants, and winning an impact to the solvency deficit.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 3Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
I voted Affirmative because the negative did not sufficiently develop any of their positions. On capitalism, I think the Aff wins a combination of the permutation and some of their capitalism good evidence. On elections, the 2NR did not respond to several of the 1AR's specific arguments which would have made it hard to vote on that an the CP. It is also just hard to conceptualize how to make my decision when there a multiple worlds in the 2NR.
Should always do the case first in the 2AC. Never ask the 2NC if she answered something! Then they can still answer it...
Date of debate: 7/10
Debating on: Tournament round #6Instructor/commentator: Aaron Tam
Comments:
You stutter sometimes and should work on backwards and the a drill
Go line by line in the 1nr it felt the like it was all over the place it should be more organized
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Date of debate: 6/21/12
Debating on: High speed rail affInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good first speech! Strong explanations of evidence.
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!