Debating on: Spending DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2NC -- When responding to 2AC arguments, always remember to extend the relevant 1NC evidence first. Good job explaining that your uniqueness evidence takes their argument into account; you can say that your evidence "assumes" entitlement spending.
2NR -- Always try to start the 2NR with a strong offensive claim (like economic decline causes nuclear war, the DA turns the case, etc.). It's a little confusing that you keep saying "we're not spending enough" -- I know you mean that the DA is unique because we aren't spending enough to trigger the impacts, but try to rephrase a bit.
Date of debate:6/25
Debating on:Theory Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-try to avoid wordiness for the sake of both clarity and time concerns
-when trying to speak quickly, start slowly and work your way there
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: 50 state fiat Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2NC
- I like your general approach here, to open with offense, then make the defensive arguments. That's a great way to structure theory debates.
- I think you need a bit more in a few places, especially on proving that debate ought to be about searching for the best policy.
- You're somewhat repetitive. You make the argument, then re-explain it. You could probably condense down a little bit to make the argument more persuasively.
2AR
- I really like your attempt to frame things in terms of fairness
- Your reciprocity argument feels a little bit detached from how the rest of this debate went. It wasn't a big part of the 1AR. And you also belabor the point quite a bit. You're pretty repetitive there. Especially since there's never a really strong argument made about why a pure sense of reciprocity even matters. The neg is saying that they NEED to have something different to counteract the aff advantage of picking their aff.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: practice debate B Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Don’t ask questions during CX of the 1NC. You need to be prepping for the 2AC.
2AC – make a decision about where to handle the CP solvency debate rather than saying you’ll be “jumping back and forth.” You can cross apply lots of arguments from the solvency flow, but it probably makes more sense to keep it all on the CP flow. You also don’t need to go to the solvency flow to say “they concede we solve” – it doesn’t really get you anywhere. Plus they made solvency-related arguments on both advantages, so it’s not even true.
Great line-by-line on the warming advantage, but your signposting on the economy flow kind of fell apart.
You could spend some more time on the CP in the 2AC. The argument that states won’t spend money is unlikely to be super helpful since the CP fiats that they do spend– instead focus on what would happen if they did deficit spend (budget DA’s, etc.)
Make a framework argument on the K – you need to win that you can weigh your impacts.
Also make a conditionality bad argument and say that 50 state fiat is bad – theory should be in every 2AC.
For your re-do – re-give the 2AR based on Adam’s 1AR rebuttal re-do – don’t complain about 1AR time pressure and say that your partner “would have” extended particular arguments… work with what you have. In this case you could have spent a lot of time on the permutation and why the alternative fails. You would also need to win that you can weigh your case impacts. Talk about why they are worse than the impacts to the K (which are poorly articulated).
Re-do -- Good! Good explanations of the impact turns. You could spend some more time on the permutation and explain why it should overwhelm the links to the aff (in addition to explaining why it avoids the impact turns, which was good). You could also use some historical examples for why hegemony solves war, etc. I think you should spend some more time comparing the warming impact to the K as well. Finally, don't bother starting on the case only to say that you are going to talk about why the case outweighs the K later... That's not very efficient. Use the full time!
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate D (2A) Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Pretty good on the case debate, extending and summarizing your 1AC ev. Need to be a little more efficient on the case, making appealing to my own personal experience is often not very effective. So a summary of your adv at the top along with evidentiary extention, then just systematically and quickly respond to their -Don't jump around to the CP and back to solvency, go in a clear order that you gave in the first speech -Go at a steady pace, don't speed up so much when you get to the text of the cards. You are fairly clear but could be a bit clearer -Good diversity on the DA, make sure you dont read repetitive cards
-Good 2AR overview explaining exactly how you win the debate and doing the impact calc, like the args about how the econ adv relates to the trade internal link and the deterrence solves Russia war args. That's next level debate. -After the overview I would attack their args first and then do anymore extension of the adv that is necessary. You need to grandstand and dismiss this "no one will ride as silly" by referencing all your solvency ev by argument and cite. -Ext the perm quickly and move on. -Pick your two best args on the JV debate, don't repeat your deterrence args from the case. You don't need to go for offense since you still have advs and what not.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Rd 1 Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2ac: Good, but you can't group the 2, 4, 6, and 8 on a page. Just answer the arg ont he 2 and then cross apply when you get to the 4, 6, etc.
you need more answers onthe cp - you should make a more complete argument about why it links to politics (cx was pretty good on this) and more solvency deficits. Also don't we have any DA's to the privates doing it?
2ar: your lack organziation and focus. You need to decide how to explain an argument. the 2ar argment extension steps are
1. reference and explain 2ac argument (and use whatever cites, examples, etc).
2. answer the neg arguments
3. even if/argument resolution question why you win it
4. impact the argument to win you the debate.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 2 Instructor/commentator: Jackie Comments:
1NC - Great speech, the analytics on case made a lot of sense and were very good. You could also read specific quotes from their evidence to further prove your point or find some cards to insert in with the analytics, as well. Speed and clarity are both good.
1NR - Good extension on politics and line by line, as well as case turn explanation and extension. Should take advantage of 2AC concessions and frame them in terms of importance to the debate - "They've conceded the turns case argument which means they can't access moral obligation, " etc
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: tournament rd. 3 Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
General comment
- You seem like you're in a really bad mood. I don't know what that's about, but you're being pretty unpleasant to your partner and not very nice to your opponent either. It doesn't reflect well on the team. You should try to be more positive, but at the very least you need to ACT like you are feeling more positive.
1NC
- Three cards on education key to competitiveness seems like serious overkill. I guess I understand that the CP might solve this, but I'd focus more on case arguments that the aff can't solve.
1NR
- It's not sufficient to kick out of the K to just say "don't let them get any offense." You have to explain WHY they can't get offense. Primarily: the CP is also capitalist, so it solves the impact turns, too.
- You make one good link distinction (House v. Senate) but it would be helpful to make some more. Particularly, you should focus on how to resolve a debate where the plan might be popular with some and unpopular with others. The aff hasn't read any ev that passing a bill that some people likes IMPROVES his capital. Which means the link should outweigh the turn. Stuff like that. You're totally on the right track here; just do more!
- You should A) point out more aggressively that they didn't read any evidence on 'capital not real' and B) just explain why the theory of political capital makes sense. You talk about not reading new ev as a general thing, but should apply it specifically here.
- Your impact stuff is pretty irrelevant. You just need to win SOME link, since your CP is guaranteed to solve the whole case. It's much more important to focus on the rest of the DA. The impact is 99.9% irrelevant in this debate.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round #4 Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Good 2AC. Smart strategic concessions.
Always make an impact related argument against politics – no impact to relations, etc.
Your coverage could be more even – it might be OK to undercover the spending DA given your aff and the 1NC evidence read on case, but both politics and states could use more answers. I don’t know if you’re operating from scouting info that this team is going to go for the K, but you should avoid over-correcting.
You should make a theory argument in the 2AC (in addition to framework) – 50 state fiat bad, conditionality bad, etc.
2AR – I don’t think that the New Jersey/Illinois argument gets you very far –
Extend the warming impact. If you win a solvency deficit to the CP, you have a HUGE external impact with no defense extended.
I don’t know what you’re doing on politics, but it makes very little sense. They extended that there are alternate causalities to Russian relations, which means repealing Jackson Vanik doesn’t solve it. There’s no way for you to get offense, especially since the link turn wasn’t even extended in the 1AR.
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
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: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2NC -- When responding to 2AC arguments, always remember to extend the relevant 1NC evidence first. Good job explaining that your uniqueness evidence takes their argument into account; you can say that your evidence "assumes" entitlement spending.
2NR -- Always try to start the 2NR with a strong offensive claim (like economic decline causes nuclear war, the DA turns the case, etc.). It's a little confusing that you keep saying "we're not spending enough" -- I know you mean that the DA is unique because we aren't spending enough to trigger the impacts, but try to rephrase a bit.
Date of debate:6/25
Debating on:TheoryInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-try to avoid wordiness for the sake of both clarity and time concerns
-when trying to speak quickly, start slowly and work your way there
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: 50 state fiatInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2NC
- I like your general approach here, to open with offense, then make the defensive arguments. That's a great way to structure theory debates.
- I think you need a bit more in a few places, especially on proving that debate ought to be about searching for the best policy.
- You're somewhat repetitive. You make the argument, then re-explain it. You could probably condense down a little bit to make the argument more persuasively.
2AR
- I really like your attempt to frame things in terms of fairness
- Your reciprocity argument feels a little bit detached from how the rest of this debate went. It wasn't a big part of the 1AR. And you also belabor the point quite a bit. You're pretty repetitive there. Especially since there's never a really strong argument made about why a pure sense of reciprocity even matters. The neg is saying that they NEED to have something different to counteract the aff advantage of picking their aff.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: practice debate BInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Don’t ask questions during CX of the 1NC. You need to be prepping for the 2AC.
2AC – make a decision about where to handle the CP solvency debate rather than saying you’ll be “jumping back and forth.” You can cross apply lots of arguments from the solvency flow, but it probably makes more sense to keep it all on the CP flow. You also don’t need to go to the solvency flow to say “they concede we solve” – it doesn’t really get you anywhere. Plus they made solvency-related arguments on both advantages, so it’s not even true.
Great line-by-line on the warming advantage, but your signposting on the economy flow kind of fell apart.
You could spend some more time on the CP in the 2AC. The argument that states won’t spend money is unlikely to be super helpful since the CP fiats that they do spend– instead focus on what would happen if they did deficit spend (budget DA’s, etc.)
Make a framework argument on the K – you need to win that you can weigh your impacts.
Also make a conditionality bad argument and say that 50 state fiat is bad – theory should be in every 2AC.
For your re-do – re-give the 2AR based on Adam’s 1AR rebuttal re-do – don’t complain about 1AR time pressure and say that your partner “would have” extended particular arguments… work with what you have. In this case you could have spent a lot of time on the permutation and why the alternative fails. You would also need to win that you can weigh your case impacts. Talk about why they are worse than the impacts to the K (which are poorly articulated).
Re-do -- Good! Good explanations of the impact turns. You could spend some more time on the permutation and explain why it should overwhelm the links to the aff (in addition to explaining why it avoids the impact turns, which was good). You could also use some historical examples for why hegemony solves war, etc. I think you should spend some more time comparing the warming impact to the K as well. Finally, don't bother starting on the case only to say that you are going to talk about why the case outweighs the K later... That's not very efficient. Use the full time!
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate D (2A)Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Pretty good on the case debate, extending and summarizing your 1AC ev. Need to be a little more efficient on the case, making appealing to my own personal experience is often not very effective. So a summary of your adv at the top along with evidentiary extention, then just systematically and quickly respond to their
-Don't jump around to the CP and back to solvency, go in a clear order that you gave in the first speech
-Go at a steady pace, don't speed up so much when you get to the text of the cards. You are fairly clear but could be a bit clearer
-Good diversity on the DA, make sure you dont read repetitive cards
-Good 2AR overview explaining exactly how you win the debate and doing the impact calc, like the args about how the econ adv relates to the trade internal link and the deterrence solves Russia war args. That's next level debate.
-After the overview I would attack their args first and then do anymore extension of the adv that is necessary. You need to grandstand and dismiss this "no one will ride as silly" by referencing all your solvency ev by argument and cite.
-Ext the perm quickly and move on.
-Pick your two best args on the JV debate, don't repeat your deterrence args from the case. You don't need to go for offense since you still have advs and what not.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Rd 1Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2ac: Good, but you can't group the 2, 4, 6, and 8 on a page. Just answer the arg ont he 2 and then cross apply when you get to the 4, 6, etc.
you need more answers onthe cp - you should make a more complete argument about why it links to politics (cx was pretty good on this) and more solvency deficits. Also don't we have any DA's to the privates doing it?
2ar: your lack organziation and focus. You need to decide how to explain an argument. the 2ar argment extension steps are
1. reference and explain 2ac argument (and use whatever cites, examples, etc).
2. answer the neg arguments
3. even if/argument resolution question why you win it
4. impact the argument to win you the debate.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 2Instructor/commentator: Jackie
Comments:
1NC - Great speech, the analytics on case made a lot of sense and were very good. You could also read specific quotes from their evidence to further prove your point or find some cards to insert in with the analytics, as well. Speed and clarity are both good.
1NR - Good extension on politics and line by line, as well as case turn explanation and extension. Should take advantage of 2AC concessions and frame them in terms of importance to the debate - "They've conceded the turns case argument which means they can't access moral obligation, " etc
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: tournament rd. 3Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
General comment
- You seem like you're in a really bad mood. I don't know what that's about, but you're being pretty unpleasant to your partner and not very nice to your opponent either. It doesn't reflect well on the team. You should try to be more positive, but at the very least you need to ACT like you are feeling more positive.
1NC
- Three cards on education key to competitiveness seems like serious overkill. I guess I understand that the CP might solve this, but I'd focus more on case arguments that the aff can't solve.
1NR
- It's not sufficient to kick out of the K to just say "don't let them get any offense." You have to explain WHY they can't get offense. Primarily: the CP is also capitalist, so it solves the impact turns, too.
- You make one good link distinction (House v. Senate) but it would be helpful to make some more. Particularly, you should focus on how to resolve a debate where the plan might be popular with some and unpopular with others. The aff hasn't read any ev that passing a bill that some people likes IMPROVES his capital. Which means the link should outweigh the turn. Stuff like that. You're totally on the right track here; just do more!
- You should A) point out more aggressively that they didn't read any evidence on 'capital not real' and B) just explain why the theory of political capital makes sense. You talk about not reading new ev as a general thing, but should apply it specifically here.
- Your impact stuff is pretty irrelevant. You just need to win SOME link, since your CP is guaranteed to solve the whole case. It's much more important to focus on the rest of the DA. The impact is 99.9% irrelevant in this debate.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round #4Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good 2AC. Smart strategic concessions.
Always make an impact related argument against politics – no impact to relations, etc.
Your coverage could be more even – it might be OK to undercover the spending DA given your aff and the 1NC evidence read on case, but both politics and states could use more answers. I don’t know if you’re operating from scouting info that this team is going to go for the K, but you should avoid over-correcting.
You should make a theory argument in the 2AC (in addition to framework) – 50 state fiat bad, conditionality bad, etc.
2AR – I don’t think that the New Jersey/Illinois argument gets you very far –
Extend the warming impact. If you win a solvency deficit to the CP, you have a HUGE external impact with no defense extended.
I don’t know what you’re doing on politics, but it makes very little sense. They extended that there are alternate causalities to Russian relations, which means repealing Jackson Vanik doesn’t solve it. There’s no way for you to get offense, especially since the link turn wasn’t even extended in the 1AR.
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!