Debating on: Case Mini Debates Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen Comments:
2NC: You do a nice job of extending cards by author, explaining warrants and giving reasons why your evidence is good. You should try to compare your evidence to the aff’s a bit more – ex: why does having evidence that is more recent make yours superior?
1NC: You are fast and clear with tags, but sometimes it’s tough to understand what you’re saying in the text of the cards. Slow down a bit and don’t try to go faster than you can! Remember to mix in analytical arguments with cards. You do a nice job of referencing 1AC evidence by author and explaining why it is a bad piece of evidence.
1AC: Consistent, clear speaking pattern – keep it up! I like that you slowed down a bit from the 1NC (see above) – this speech would definitely up your speaker points in my mind.
2AC: Good, short overview at the top of your speech and the transition of “now onto the line-by-line” is good too. You do a much better job of comparative analysis than in your previous speeches and you explain why your evidence/arguments are more preferable to the neg’s.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T mini debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2ac: - make sure you tag your arguments
- number your 2ac arguments and create clear separation
you may not need as many military definitions in this 2ac, but that willd epend a bit on how the debate develops
- good explanation of limits and smart we-meet argument!
1ar: Extend 2ac argument by ARG label and not by cite (exclusively) it can be confusing. Also, it's helpful to reference 2ac#s
You may want to pick and choose arguments for this 1ar. I would pick ground and talk about how that is more important since the 2nc didn't talk about ground.
1ar redo: This was remarkably better. You were very organized and clear in your explanation. You sounded fantastic. A nearly perfect speech!
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: T Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
- You could develop your arguments a bit more. You imply the fairness arguments very well, but could just spell it out more clearly.
- Depth vs. breadth doesn't really mean much. Either make the argument more completely or don't bother.
- Could be a little more efficient. But it's better to say a lot than not enough.
2NC
- Explain what 'infinite prep' means. It's a good argument, but you need to be more clear about how it interacts.
- In general, you use a lot of buzzwords, where it would be a little more clear if you explained them in common language a little more.
1AR
- Try to prioritize for the 1AR, when time is limited. I really like that you identify one element as more important, but if you do that, you probably don't need to devote much energy to debating fairness at all. They don't really have any offensive argument about fairness after all.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- The 2AC doesn't need to reference/answer 1NC cards in order; the 2AC sets the order for the debate, so go in order of most importance to you. On a related note, spend less time analyzing neg evidence -- that's better saved for the 2AR. Read as many cards as possible in the 2AC. Your "no internal link argument" could be clearer (I didn't understand what it was).
1AR -- Good speech! "We don't specify/you have no evidence about how much the plan costs" is probably not a winner against the spending DA, but otherwise your arguments are very good.
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on: Spending Da redo of 2ar Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
Explain why recency matters for the uniqueness debate and why that helps to explain that your argument can be true even if theirs is
For the internal link, do the same even if comparisons
in general, your 2ar lacks some explanation - you need to sit on an issue and wax a bit more poetic on it. I feel like this 2ar is too much like a 1ar - not much picking and choosing, not much explanation.
After you do the even if statements, then do some explanation to the impact to the overall importance of the debate.
redo this again with me.
Redo of the redo
good doing comparisons of uniqueness - but make sure you explain the arg before you explain why yours is more true :) it will minimize a little confusion.
i think you need more discussion of why the emp denied link of previous large sums of transportation. you are almost great on this - but talk about why this would emp deny their perception link and would alow folks to be mroe prepared for the plan.
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: K Mini Debate 2ac/1ar/2ar Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Try to contextualize your answers to your aff -Need to make an argument about why you need to prefer utilitarianism over moral rules -Good job using your 2AC args as the template for the 1AR and contextualizing it to your Aff -Make fun of their epistemology args more but you did do a good job attacking their evidence -Start offensively, not defensively, I wanna hear about the one way that you are gonna win this debate. Is it the permutation, is it the impacts to the 1AC, whatever it is. Explain what your gonna do it then check off the boxes.
Date of debate:6/29
Debating on: CPs Instructor/commentator: Baker Comments:
-make sure to make a concrete, terminal impact to your theory arguments
-avoid repetition of terms like "fairness" and "education" as impact statements to each individual argument
-try to minimize the use of jargon
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Negative vs Mass Trans Aff with Racism Adv Instructor/commentator: Solice Comments:
Focus more on clarity on tags – especially early in the season
Use “Thank you” to preserve your CX time rather than the Dr. Evil finger “shht” J
Use the negative block more strategically with your partner to set up a “path to victory” for the 2NR – in this debate, the disads (or at least one of them) and the framework debate probably should have been in the 2NR so that you can do stronger line-by-line needed to win both Util good and then the MPX needed to outweigh with that framework. In this round the CP is not particularly mutually exclusive, so either do the work on the flow to make it Mut Ex or consider spending that time on case, framework or the disad flow.
Watch out when running Politics and this CP since a plan to end all Hwy subsidies would be terrifically unpopular. This forces you to run the CP conditionally at best.
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.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate D Instructor/commentator: Nick Comments:
- Try to let your partner answer cross-x questions unless you think it's something that could cost you the whole debate
- Nice job on the case in the 2AC referencing qualifications and un-underlined portions of neg evidence, especially on the climate debate
- You should try to read a piece of evidence to answer the ice age impact turn - it's their only offense besides the disad
- Some of your analytics need to be impacted - try to explain why it matters if their stimulus bad authors are super conservative
- Nice explanation of your access to the economy impact and framing warming as a "tie-breaker" - very nice
- Good impact comparison at the top of the 2AR, but you don't need to say timeframe/magnitude for each of your impact
- There was no permutation in the 1AR - you would be better served spending this time on solvency deficits
- Good "even if" comparison on the spending disad with the link turn and your economy advantage
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate E Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
1NC: I wouldn't bother reading federalism - there isn't a link to it. Make your inherency and solvency arguments on the same page. Good job combining analytical and carded case arguments.
1NR: It's great to number your arguments to make them easier to flow, but the most important thing is to refer to the 2AC arguments you are answering. You answered everything except their 3rd argument - the no link. Use "they say." Given how much they dropped on the case, you could blow through it really quickly. You really only need to go to solvency since it takes out all of the advantages. This would leave you more time to spend on politics to read more cards and do more specific impact calculus. You really want to bury the affirmative in the block since you have the time.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Round 4 Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
1N
- You are a little bit unclear at times, slurring some words. So I would work on overenunciating words when you do speaking drills.
- 1NC was very good though, and had a lot of arguments on case that made a lot of sense including analytics.
- you don't need to reexplain the disad at the top of the 1nr on politics, instead jump right to the impact calculus work you're doing
- you also read a bunch of bostrum cards in the middle of the flow which you could probably group with the rest of the impact calculus.
- Thought the 1NR was very very good though; if possible, coordinate with the 2NC to ensure you have even more time to spend on the case, because I think it'd be even more effective if you had a few more arguments on each case flow.
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 DebatesInstructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen
Comments:
2NC: You do a nice job of extending cards by author, explaining warrants and giving reasons why your evidence is good. You should try to compare your evidence to the aff’s a bit more – ex: why does having evidence that is more recent make yours superior?
1NC: You are fast and clear with tags, but sometimes it’s tough to understand what you’re saying in the text of the cards. Slow down a bit and don’t try to go faster than you can! Remember to mix in analytical arguments with cards. You do a nice job of referencing 1AC evidence by author and explaining why it is a bad piece of evidence.
1AC: Consistent, clear speaking pattern – keep it up! I like that you slowed down a bit from the 1NC (see above) – this speech would definitely up your speaker points in my mind.
2AC: Good, short overview at the top of your speech and the transition of “now onto the line-by-line” is good too. You do a much better job of comparative analysis than in your previous speeches and you explain why your evidence/arguments are more preferable to the neg’s.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T mini debateInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2ac: - make sure you tag your arguments
- number your 2ac arguments and create clear separation
you may not need as many military definitions in this 2ac, but that willd epend a bit on how the debate develops
- good explanation of limits and smart we-meet argument!
1ar: Extend 2ac argument by ARG label and not by cite (exclusively) it can be confusing. Also, it's helpful to reference 2ac#s
You may want to pick and choose arguments for this 1ar. I would pick ground and talk about how that is more important since the 2nc didn't talk about ground.
1ar redo: This was remarkably better. You were very organized and clear in your explanation. You sounded fantastic. A nearly perfect speech!
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: TInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
- You could develop your arguments a bit more. You imply the fairness arguments very well, but could just spell it out more clearly.
- Depth vs. breadth doesn't really mean much. Either make the argument more completely or don't bother.
- Could be a little more efficient. But it's better to say a lot than not enough.
2NC
- Explain what 'infinite prep' means. It's a good argument, but you need to be more clear about how it interacts.
- In general, you use a lot of buzzwords, where it would be a little more clear if you explained them in common language a little more.
1AR
- Try to prioritize for the 1AR, when time is limited. I really like that you identify one element as more important, but if you do that, you probably don't need to devote much energy to debating fairness at all. They don't really have any offensive argument about fairness after all.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- The 2AC doesn't need to reference/answer 1NC cards in order; the 2AC sets the order for the debate, so go in order of most importance to you. On a related note, spend less time analyzing neg evidence -- that's better saved for the 2AR. Read as many cards as possible in the 2AC. Your "no internal link argument" could be clearer (I didn't understand what it was).
1AR -- Good speech! "We don't specify/you have no evidence about how much the plan costs" is probably not a winner against the spending DA, but otherwise your arguments are very good.
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on: Spending Da redo of 2arInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Explain why recency matters for the uniqueness debate and why that helps to explain that your argument can be true even if theirs is
For the internal link, do the same even if comparisons
in general, your 2ar lacks some explanation - you need to sit on an issue and wax a bit more poetic on it. I feel like this 2ar is too much like a 1ar - not much picking and choosing, not much explanation.
After you do the even if statements, then do some explanation to the impact to the overall importance of the debate.
redo this again with me.
Redo of the redo
good doing comparisons of uniqueness - but make sure you explain the arg before you explain why yours is more true :) it will minimize a little confusion.
i think you need more discussion of why the emp denied link of previous large sums of transportation. you are almost great on this - but talk about why this would emp deny their perception link and would alow folks to be mroe prepared for the plan.
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: K Mini Debate 2ac/1ar/2arInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Try to contextualize your answers to your aff
-Need to make an argument about why you need to prefer utilitarianism over moral rules
-Good job using your 2AC args as the template for the 1AR and contextualizing it to your Aff
-Make fun of their epistemology args more but you did do a good job attacking their evidence
-Start offensively, not defensively, I wanna hear about the one way that you are gonna win this debate. Is it the permutation, is it the impacts to the 1AC, whatever it is. Explain what your gonna do it then check off the boxes.
Date of debate:6/29
Debating on: CPsInstructor/commentator: Baker
Comments:
-make sure to make a concrete, terminal impact to your theory arguments
-avoid repetition of terms like "fairness" and "education" as impact statements to each individual argument
-try to minimize the use of jargon
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Negative vs Mass Trans Aff with Racism AdvInstructor/commentator: Solice
Comments:
Focus more on clarity on tags – especially early in the season
Use “Thank you” to preserve your CX time rather than the Dr. Evil finger “shht” J
Use the negative block more strategically with your partner to set up a “path to victory” for the 2NR – in this debate, the disads (or at least one of them) and the framework debate probably should have been in the 2NR so that you can do stronger line-by-line needed to win both Util good and then the MPX needed to outweigh with that framework. In this round the CP is not particularly mutually exclusive, so either do the work on the flow to make it Mut Ex or consider spending that time on case, framework or the disad flow.
Watch out when running Politics and this CP since a plan to end all Hwy subsidies would be terrifically unpopular. This forces you to run the CP conditionally at best.
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.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate DInstructor/commentator: Nick
Comments:
- Try to let your partner answer cross-x questions unless you think it's something that could cost you the whole debate
- Nice job on the case in the 2AC referencing qualifications and un-underlined portions of neg evidence, especially on the climate debate
- You should try to read a piece of evidence to answer the ice age impact turn - it's their only offense besides the disad
- Some of your analytics need to be impacted - try to explain why it matters if their stimulus bad authors are super conservative
- Nice explanation of your access to the economy impact and framing warming as a "tie-breaker" - very nice
- Good impact comparison at the top of the 2AR, but you don't need to say timeframe/magnitude for each of your impact
- There was no permutation in the 1AR - you would be better served spending this time on solvency deficits
- Good "even if" comparison on the spending disad with the link turn and your economy advantage
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate EInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
1NC: I wouldn't bother reading federalism - there isn't a link to it. Make your inherency and solvency arguments on the same page. Good job combining analytical and carded case arguments.
1NR: It's great to number your arguments to make them easier to flow, but the most important thing is to refer to the 2AC arguments you are answering. You answered everything except their 3rd argument - the no link. Use "they say." Given how much they dropped on the case, you could blow through it really quickly. You really only need to go to solvency since it takes out all of the advantages. This would leave you more time to spend on politics to read more cards and do more specific impact calculus. You really want to bury the affirmative in the block since you have the time.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Round 4Instructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
1N
- You are a little bit unclear at times, slurring some words. So I would work on overenunciating words when you do speaking drills.
- 1NC was very good though, and had a lot of arguments on case that made a lot of sense including analytics.
- you don't need to reexplain the disad at the top of the 1nr on politics, instead jump right to the impact calculus work you're doing
- you also read a bunch of bostrum cards in the middle of the flow which you could probably group with the rest of the impact calculus.
- Thought the 1NR was very very good though; if possible, coordinate with the 2NC to ensure you have even more time to spend on the case, because I think it'd be even more effective if you had a few more arguments on each case flow.
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!