Debating on: case mini debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew Comments:
- you have highlighted too much in these 1nc cards - they are too long
- explain why losing one state is important to economic benefits
- why were there no conflicts in the past - give those reasons to improve that argument
- why is the economy resilient - explain these specifics
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T - military ≠ public Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- good, but need to be more clear on the text of cards -- your speed is great, but I should be able to hear every word. Generally you could also slow down a bit for a T 2ac -- it's the hardest argument to flow
1AR -- work on efficiency, especially on the top part of the flow. Good evidence comparison.
2AR -- Probably not worth it to go for the we meet arg in this debate. Focus less on advantage ground/areas, and more on the mechanism of the military. On reasonability, you want to win that your interpretation doesn't have to be *perfect* as long as it's a fair vision of the topic.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP/federalism Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2ac: much louder on cards. We reworked your tags substantially and talked about how to write better permutation texts.
1ar: we walked through some of your explanation of the 1ar arguments. Federalism lack of modeling needs more explanation and specificity - discuss how few counries exist that could possibly model (by few i mean none).
Double solvency - not sure why that matters with an econ advantage.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: redo 1nr Instructor/commentator: gjerpen Comments:
1NR politics redo: Have a better overview with more specific turns case analysis. You should also do more evidence comparison on uniqueness - you just read new cards but there's no discussion of why these cards should be preferred over the 2AC cards. Are they newer? More credible? The same is true for the link debate - if you are going to read new cards, make sure to include analysis about why these cards prove you control the direction of the link. Because of time constraints in the 1AR, this will put more pressure on the 1AR and will also make for an easier 2NR since the 1AR will likely drop a lot of these nuances. Don't be afraid to re-tag some of the impact cards to make them perceptually sound more like turns the case args (example: Iran strikes gut hegemony probably turns their heg). You should also put the bulk of your impact work at the top of the politics flow, not at the bottom.
Date of debate:7/10
Debating on: Round 6 Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
-try to be a little bit louder/clearer especially in cross-ex because I couldn't pick up on every question you asked
-good decision to kick the k in the 1NR. I would split up the block a little bit differently though, there's no need for you to take all of the theory arguments, especially because I think there are a lot of arguments that would get you a lot of ground on the case, if you extended them in the 1nr.
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:
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 debateInstructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew
Comments:
- you have highlighted too much in these 1nc cards - they are too long
- explain why losing one state is important to economic benefits
- why were there no conflicts in the past - give those reasons to improve that argument
- why is the economy resilient - explain these specifics
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T - military ≠ publicInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- good, but need to be more clear on the text of cards -- your speed is great, but I should be able to hear every word. Generally you could also slow down a bit for a T 2ac -- it's the hardest argument to flow
1AR -- work on efficiency, especially on the top part of the flow. Good evidence comparison.
2AR -- Probably not worth it to go for the we meet arg in this debate. Focus less on advantage ground/areas, and more on the mechanism of the military. On reasonability, you want to win that your interpretation doesn't have to be *perfect* as long as it's a fair vision of the topic.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP/federalismInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2ac: much louder on cards. We reworked your tags substantially and talked about how to write better permutation texts.
1ar: we walked through some of your explanation of the 1ar arguments. Federalism lack of modeling needs more explanation and specificity - discuss how few counries exist that could possibly model (by few i mean none).
Double solvency - not sure why that matters with an econ advantage.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: redo 1nrInstructor/commentator: gjerpen
Comments:
1NR politics redo: Have a better overview with more specific turns case analysis. You should also do more evidence comparison on uniqueness - you just read new cards but there's no discussion of why these cards should be preferred over the 2AC cards. Are they newer? More credible? The same is true for the link debate - if you are going to read new cards, make sure to include analysis about why these cards prove you control the direction of the link. Because of time constraints in the 1AR, this will put more pressure on the 1AR and will also make for an easier 2NR since the 1AR will likely drop a lot of these nuances. Don't be afraid to re-tag some of the impact cards to make them perceptually sound more like turns the case args (example: Iran strikes gut hegemony probably turns their heg). You should also put the bulk of your impact work at the top of the politics flow, not at the bottom.
Date of debate:7/10
Debating on: Round 6Instructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
-try to be a little bit louder/clearer especially in cross-ex because I couldn't pick up on every question you asked
-good decision to kick the k in the 1NR. I would split up the block a little bit differently though, there's no need for you to take all of the theory arguments, especially because I think there are a lot of arguments that would get you a lot of ground on the case, if you extended them in the 1nr.
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:
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!