Debating on: Case Mini Debate (Neg) Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Good use of analytics in the 1NC -Good use of 1NC evidence in the 2NC and good organization. -I want you to work on referencing the other teams argument without fully repeating it.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: Topicality Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
2AC: Great job explaining why they make the topic too small. You also want to talk about why you don't make it too big. You want to be like Goldilocks! Try to come up with a distinction between pipelines and their other examples like broadband. You could say pipelines are tangible and information is not.
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: T Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
- Good job on explanation of fairness. The comparison between the aff's responsibility and the neg is good
- Don't say squo or condo. Every time you say these a baby seal dies.
- Really nice set of arguments. You've got most everything you need here.
2NC
- Great job. Really thorough. If anything, you probably would want to spend less time on this.
- Same as with Tiffany. You have a good job on the 'search for the best policy' but I think you could do more to frame this in terms of learning how to think logically.
- I like that you attempt to limit the damage by saying you only have on CP. You could add more to this and make it a counter-interpretation or something like that.
- Put your pen down when you talk. The clicking is very distracting.
1AR
- You don't need to start out with "on the fairness/reciprocity debate." That's a waste of time in a theory debate of this size.
- You're going into a bit more depth than you would really have time for in the 1AR. You've got a lot of good stuff here, but there's a fair amount of details that would be better saved for the 2AR when you might have the time.
- I like that you challenge the 'we only read one CP'
- Don't end your speech with "end of speech. sorry"
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- great speech! you could differentiate between arguments a little bit more (slightly hard to flow).
1AR -- Have more confidence! Your speech is awesome but you seem so flustered.
Focus on extending/answering arguments more than reading new cards; in particular, extend the complete argument BEFORE reading new evidence. Also make sure you flag which argument you are extending.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 2AC Redo Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Slow down just a notch so that you can stay at a steady speed -Don't read the "states won't spend" money in the 2AC -Good increase in speed and efficiency, did not summarize your cards and used analytics to attack their evidence
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 2AC/1AR CP Mini Debate Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
Don't summarize and explain the cards you read in the 2AC - the point of having mini debates is to practice skills for real debates! It's good you are able to explain the evidence, but you save this for the 1AR and 2AR. You don't really make many specific arguments about why the States can't solve HSR - tailor your no solvency arguments to be more specific to your aff rather than general or abstract "can't solve transportation infrastructure" arguments. For the 1AR, you need to be more efficient. You're too wordy, using filler phrases like "I'm going to do this next" - if you eliminate these, you will be way more efficient in all speeches. You don't need to kick perms in the 1AR. You also need to make sure to cover the whole CP and DA flows in the 1AR - you drop some arguments at the bottom of the CP flow because you run out of time.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate D Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Time the 1NC in advance so you fill the whole time!
Good CX of the 2AC.
1NR – Generally good, but needs to be more organized. You and Mindi are relying too much on each other for various arguments during both block speeches – keep the arguments separate and focus only on what you are extending.
For your re-do – re-give the 1NR with better organization; avoid jumping around; and extend 1-2 solvency arguments
1) Give an impact assessment at the top of the flow – compare the DA’s internal links to the economy to those of the aff, and explain why the DA happens faster. Make the “turns case” argument here.
2) Point out that if it’s true that there’s no way to prevent a new recession, this would take out the case
3) Read 1-2 more cards on each question
4) Extend a couple of arguments on solvency
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 2 Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: I voted Aff because the Perm solves some risk of the impacts and I don't think that the alt is likely to be effective at combatting capitalism.
Impact turning Cap is probably a better strat than the perm/link defense strategy considering your aff and advs. In the 2AR, you need to explain better how the permutation would function and what you do to solve capitalism.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Debate #2 Instructor/commentator: Baker Comments:
-start slower and work up speed
-try to get to the case with more time
-pretty sure you read the Isaac card twice in the 1NC
-try to avoid wordiness in your analytic arguments
-remember to impact the arguments you make about the qualifications of authors
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round #4 Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 1NC – You don’t need to re-read the impact to competitiveness—it’s in the 1AC. Don’t say “rels” instead of “relations” – that barely saves you any time and sounds terrible.
Be careful about making impact defense arguments that take out your own impacts (like defense against competitiveness).
I really don’t think the way you feed Mindi arguments for the 2NC is strategic. If you want to write blocks for the off case positions, that’s fine, but give them to her before the debate.
1NR – I think CP, spending, and all of the case is too much for the 1NR. You are fast, but not quite efficient enough to do a really good job on the off case positions and make DA/case a viable 2NR threat. This is demonstrated when you don’t deal with/respond to the 2AC concession that no one policy can solve competitiveness to take out the impact to your DA. You don’t extend any impact to the spending DA at all; if it’s just going to function as a case turn, that could be more clear, and you probably want to have defense to their internal links or at least reasons why your links outweigh.
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: 6/21
Debating on: Case Mini Debate (Neg)Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Good use of analytics in the 1NC
-Good use of 1NC evidence in the 2NC and good organization.
-I want you to work on referencing the other teams argument without fully repeating it.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: TopicalityInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
2AC: Great job explaining why they make the topic too small. You also want to talk about why you don't make it too big. You want to be like Goldilocks! Try to come up with a distinction between pipelines and their other examples like broadband. You could say pipelines are tangible and information is not.
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: TInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
- Good job on explanation of fairness. The comparison between the aff's responsibility and the neg is good
- Don't say squo or condo. Every time you say these a baby seal dies.
- Really nice set of arguments. You've got most everything you need here.
2NC
- Great job. Really thorough. If anything, you probably would want to spend less time on this.
- Same as with Tiffany. You have a good job on the 'search for the best policy' but I think you could do more to frame this in terms of learning how to think logically.
- I like that you attempt to limit the damage by saying you only have on CP. You could add more to this and make it a counter-interpretation or something like that.
- Put your pen down when you talk. The clicking is very distracting.
1AR
- You don't need to start out with "on the fairness/reciprocity debate." That's a waste of time in a theory debate of this size.
- You're going into a bit more depth than you would really have time for in the 1AR. You've got a lot of good stuff here, but there's a fair amount of details that would be better saved for the 2AR when you might have the time.
- I like that you challenge the 'we only read one CP'
- Don't end your speech with "end of speech. sorry"
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- great speech! you could differentiate between arguments a little bit more (slightly hard to flow).
1AR -- Have more confidence! Your speech is awesome but you seem so flustered.
Focus on extending/answering arguments more than reading new cards; in particular, extend the complete argument BEFORE reading new evidence. Also make sure you flag which argument you are extending.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 2AC RedoInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Slow down just a notch so that you can stay at a steady speed
-Don't read the "states won't spend" money in the 2AC
-Good increase in speed and efficiency, did not summarize your cards and used analytics to attack their evidence
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 2AC/1AR CP Mini DebateInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
Don't summarize and explain the cards you read in the 2AC - the point of having mini debates is to practice skills for real debates! It's good you are able to explain the evidence, but you save this for the 1AR and 2AR. You don't really make many specific arguments about why the States can't solve HSR - tailor your no solvency arguments to be more specific to your aff rather than general or abstract "can't solve transportation infrastructure" arguments. For the 1AR, you need to be more efficient. You're too wordy, using filler phrases like "I'm going to do this next" - if you eliminate these, you will be way more efficient in all speeches. You don't need to kick perms in the 1AR. You also need to make sure to cover the whole CP and DA flows in the 1AR - you drop some arguments at the bottom of the CP flow because you run out of time.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate DInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Time the 1NC in advance so you fill the whole time!
Good CX of the 2AC.
1NR – Generally good, but needs to be more organized. You and Mindi are relying too much on each other for various arguments during both block speeches – keep the arguments separate and focus only on what you are extending.
For your re-do – re-give the 1NR with better organization; avoid jumping around; and extend 1-2 solvency arguments
1) Give an impact assessment at the top of the flow – compare the DA’s internal links to the economy to those of the aff, and explain why the DA happens faster. Make the “turns case” argument here.
2) Point out that if it’s true that there’s no way to prevent a new recession, this would take out the case
3) Read 1-2 more cards on each question
4) Extend a couple of arguments on solvency
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 2Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
I voted Aff because the Perm solves some risk of the impacts and I don't think that the alt is likely to be effective at combatting capitalism.
Impact turning Cap is probably a better strat than the perm/link defense strategy considering your aff and advs. In the 2AR, you need to explain better how the permutation would function and what you do to solve capitalism.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Debate #2Instructor/commentator: Baker
Comments:
-start slower and work up speed
-try to get to the case with more time
-pretty sure you read the Isaac card twice in the 1NC
-try to avoid wordiness in your analytic arguments
-remember to impact the arguments you make about the qualifications of authors
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round #4Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC – You don’t need to re-read the impact to competitiveness—it’s in the 1AC. Don’t say “rels” instead of “relations” – that barely saves you any time and sounds terrible.
Be careful about making impact defense arguments that take out your own impacts (like defense against competitiveness).
I really don’t think the way you feed Mindi arguments for the 2NC is strategic. If you want to write blocks for the off case positions, that’s fine, but give them to her before the debate.
1NR – I think CP, spending, and all of the case is too much for the 1NR. You are fast, but not quite efficient enough to do a really good job on the off case positions and make DA/case a viable 2NR threat. This is demonstrated when you don’t deal with/respond to the 2AC concession that no one policy can solve competitiveness to take out the impact to your DA. You don’t extend any impact to the spending DA at all; if it’s just going to function as a case turn, that could be more clear, and you probably want to have defense to their internal links or at least reasons why your links outweigh.
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!