Debating on: case minidebate Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew Comments:
- your signposting of the 1nc is off - need some arg reference
- reference jobs v. investment key to economy once, not repetitively
- better explain your internal link to competitiveness and the context to the world economy for that
- use extra time to explain the impact to economy, not read an unnecessary 2ac card
Date of debate:
Debating on: T - military ≠ public Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2NC -- Need more explanation of why the large number of affs justified by the affirmative interp is bad. Also explain WHY limits are key to education. Good speech overall!
2NR -- could be more organized in setting up your speech. Start out the 2NR with a stronger *offensive* claim, like a set of examples of the ridiculous affs the affirmative interpretation would justify, or an explanation of why the inclusion of the military is unlimiting. When you talk about potential abuse, explain why voting on T sets a precedent for what is acceptable on the topic. T is about the best vision of the topic, not whether or not there was "abuse" in the round.
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: 50 state fiat Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2NC
Good set of arguments, but there are a few things that could be a little bit different. The evidence is okay to prove it's reasonable, but I wouldn’t call it 'most real world.' It does prove that there is a possible option in our system, which we ought to use more. And that does prove that this isn't THAT different from the aff's fiat. It's different in degree but not kind.
I'm not sure why 'they fiat congress, we get the states' is true. The more logical (to me) extrapolation is that you should also be able to fiat the same agent.
I think you could develop the IMPORTANCE of checking against small affs and justifying the USFG.
2NR
Good job on the argument that there would be a ton of small affs, AND on the explanation of how hard it would be to be neg without generics. I would like to still see a bit more about precisely what makes the states counterplan SO useful, where other generics won't work. I think it's TRUE, but you should explain more.
I would also like to hear a little bit more about how the states counterplan doesn't entail completely ignoring aff-specific research. Talk about how it involves debating the case in some meaningful fashion and you'll be a lot more persuasive on the educational value of the practice.
I'm not super-convinced by the reciprocal nature of the CP's fiat. I think you need to double down on 'reciprocity not important here' because you're probably not going to win the no link.
Try to anticipate a decision-making model argument. You can preempt it a bit in the 2NC so that you can scream about them dropping it here and prevent the 2AR from waxing eloquent about it.
Date of debate: 6/26
Debating on: 50 state fiat Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2NC -- I think it's good to isolate/highlight your offense at some point in the speech -- it doesn't have to be at the top, but somewhere. Also, make sure to reference which 2AC argument you're answering.
2NR -- great structure. Don't cede to the aff that you "don't talk about the 1AC" when debating the states CP; rephrase so you don't give them a major point of offense. Talk about why the education of federal vs. states is valuable. Do some more impact comparison.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: DA mini debate Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
1NC
You're a little bit mumbly. Try to enunciate a tiny bit more
2NC
- Organization! You start with the #5-6 on the DA, then go to the #3-4. And you claim that they don't answer the impact at all, but they made two answers to it. You do a lot of 'impact analysis' but don't really debate the actual impact - just talk about the very terminal effect.
- You need to be more persuasive about the distinction between the plan and the SQ. You just assert that new, large spending will break the current balance. But why? If that current balance includes a lot of spending, what's the difference?
- I think you do a good job extending the best arg on the case (no modeling, etc.), but could do more to prove the SQ is sustainable.
2NR
- You're starting on the uniqueness debate again. Which makes sense, but is not the order set by the aff. You do a good job explaining the current political circumstance and the role of new spending to disrupt it.
- You lose track a bit on the link turn. Obviously you noticed that you had a problem during the speech, which is good.
- Good on the case. The only thing here would be prioritizing the way that you frame things. You win a fair number of arguments, but how precisely does it interact?
Date of debate:6/28
Debating on:CPs Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-in the rebuttals, evaluate arguments first from the perspective of their impact on the overall debate then after weighing their possible affects, move on to refuting individual arguments
-concessions dont need to be over explained, thats the beauty of them - walk the line and discuss more the impact the concession has on the debate and less what the concession was
-good use of your 1ac impact, make sure to nail down your access to it first though - dont forget the importance of picking and choosing internal links
-start with why your argument is correct, then work back to why their responses are incorrect
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Cap K Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2NR
- At the top, you've got some nice arguments about how the link plays out, but you're treating this like a free-floating reason to vote rather than just a supplement to the link. You need to start out by establishing the basic link that the plan is simply part of the cycle of crisis, not a resolution to that cycle in any way.
- The stuff about always justifying then next set of investments is phrased somewhat unclearly but is a very good argument.
- You got a little flustered in the middle, which is fine. Taking a few seconds to catch your thoughts is better than stumbling around indefinitely.
- Need more to explicitly engage the Gibson-Graham argument. It's clearly attached to the perm, but you end up leaving it somewhat untouched.
- You really want to prevent the 2AR from being able to grandstand too much. Going for the K in the 2NR is a lot like T: you can't block new arguments that much, you can anticipate them and respond to them.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: 1AR redo Instructor/commentator: gjerpen Comments:
1AR: Why do you kick the perm? It seems like your 1AR on the kritik is centered on your realism good/inevitable arguments, which is a reason why the aff is net-benefitial to the perm. Do some more work on the alternative portion of the K debate -explain why the alt can't solve the aff, or even if it does, why your impacts come first (you say that your economy advantage is going to outweigh, but you should do some timeframe analysis). On the politics disad, you should do more evidence comparison on the uniqueness and link debate. Also explain why it doesn't outweigh or turn your aff.
Date of debate: 7/10
Debating on: Round 6 Instructor/commentator:Yamamura Comments:
- on politics, I think you can do a better job of delineating warrants between cards. For example, you read a few cards on plan unpopular, but make sure to articulate what the warrants are and why they are better than the aff warrants.
- I wouldn't bother extending this T violation. I don't think it's particularly convincing, and it seems like a negative time trade-off for you.
- you need to make sure you answer the aff's root cause claims. Especially when you are going for a CP, and want to leverage external offense, you have to make sure that the aff can't access your impacts either.
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 minidebateInstructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew
Comments:
- your signposting of the 1nc is off - need some arg reference
- reference jobs v. investment key to economy once, not repetitively
- better explain your internal link to competitiveness and the context to the world economy for that
- use extra time to explain the impact to economy, not read an unnecessary 2ac card
Date of debate:
Debating on: T - military ≠ publicInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2NC -- Need more explanation of why the large number of affs justified by the affirmative interp is bad. Also explain WHY limits are key to education. Good speech overall!
2NR -- could be more organized in setting up your speech. Start out the 2NR with a stronger *offensive* claim, like a set of examples of the ridiculous affs the affirmative interpretation would justify, or an explanation of why the inclusion of the military is unlimiting. When you talk about potential abuse, explain why voting on T sets a precedent for what is acceptable on the topic. T is about the best vision of the topic, not whether or not there was "abuse" in the round.
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: 50 state fiatInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2NC
Good set of arguments, but there are a few things that could be a little bit different. The evidence is okay to prove it's reasonable, but I wouldn’t call it 'most real world.' It does prove that there is a possible option in our system, which we ought to use more. And that does prove that this isn't THAT different from the aff's fiat. It's different in degree but not kind.
I'm not sure why 'they fiat congress, we get the states' is true. The more logical (to me) extrapolation is that you should also be able to fiat the same agent.
I think you could develop the IMPORTANCE of checking against small affs and justifying the USFG.
2NR
Good job on the argument that there would be a ton of small affs, AND on the explanation of how hard it would be to be neg without generics. I would like to still see a bit more about precisely what makes the states counterplan SO useful, where other generics won't work. I think it's TRUE, but you should explain more.
I would also like to hear a little bit more about how the states counterplan doesn't entail completely ignoring aff-specific research. Talk about how it involves debating the case in some meaningful fashion and you'll be a lot more persuasive on the educational value of the practice.
I'm not super-convinced by the reciprocal nature of the CP's fiat. I think you need to double down on 'reciprocity not important here' because you're probably not going to win the no link.
Try to anticipate a decision-making model argument. You can preempt it a bit in the 2NC so that you can scream about them dropping it here and prevent the 2AR from waxing eloquent about it.
Date of debate: 6/26
Debating on: 50 state fiatInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2NC -- I think it's good to isolate/highlight your offense at some point in the speech -- it doesn't have to be at the top, but somewhere. Also, make sure to reference which 2AC argument you're answering.
2NR -- great structure. Don't cede to the aff that you "don't talk about the 1AC" when debating the states CP; rephrase so you don't give them a major point of offense. Talk about why the education of federal vs. states is valuable. Do some more impact comparison.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: DA mini debateInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
1NC
You're a little bit mumbly. Try to enunciate a tiny bit more
2NC
- Organization! You start with the #5-6 on the DA, then go to the #3-4. And you claim that they don't answer the impact at all, but they made two answers to it. You do a lot of 'impact analysis' but don't really debate the actual impact - just talk about the very terminal effect.
- You need to be more persuasive about the distinction between the plan and the SQ. You just assert that new, large spending will break the current balance. But why? If that current balance includes a lot of spending, what's the difference?
- I think you do a good job extending the best arg on the case (no modeling, etc.), but could do more to prove the SQ is sustainable.
2NR
- You're starting on the uniqueness debate again. Which makes sense, but is not the order set by the aff. You do a good job explaining the current political circumstance and the role of new spending to disrupt it.
- You lose track a bit on the link turn. Obviously you noticed that you had a problem during the speech, which is good.
- Good on the case. The only thing here would be prioritizing the way that you frame things. You win a fair number of arguments, but how precisely does it interact?
Date of debate:6/28
Debating on:CPsInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-in the rebuttals, evaluate arguments first from the perspective of their impact on the overall debate then after weighing their possible affects, move on to refuting individual arguments
-concessions dont need to be over explained, thats the beauty of them - walk the line and discuss more the impact the concession has on the debate and less what the concession was
-good use of your 1ac impact, make sure to nail down your access to it first though - dont forget the importance of picking and choosing internal links
-start with why your argument is correct, then work back to why their responses are incorrect
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Cap KInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2NR
- At the top, you've got some nice arguments about how the link plays out, but you're treating this like a free-floating reason to vote rather than just a supplement to the link. You need to start out by establishing the basic link that the plan is simply part of the cycle of crisis, not a resolution to that cycle in any way.
- The stuff about always justifying then next set of investments is phrased somewhat unclearly but is a very good argument.
- You got a little flustered in the middle, which is fine. Taking a few seconds to catch your thoughts is better than stumbling around indefinitely.
- Need more to explicitly engage the Gibson-Graham argument. It's clearly attached to the perm, but you end up leaving it somewhat untouched.
- You really want to prevent the 2AR from being able to grandstand too much. Going for the K in the 2NR is a lot like T: you can't block new arguments that much, you can anticipate them and respond to them.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: 1AR redoInstructor/commentator: gjerpen
Comments:
1AR: Why do you kick the perm? It seems like your 1AR on the kritik is centered on your realism good/inevitable arguments, which is a reason why the aff is net-benefitial to the perm. Do some more work on the alternative portion of the K debate -explain why the alt can't solve the aff, or even if it does, why your impacts come first (you say that your economy advantage is going to outweigh, but you should do some timeframe analysis). On the politics disad, you should do more evidence comparison on the uniqueness and link debate. Also explain why it doesn't outweigh or turn your aff.
Date of debate: 7/10
Debating on: Round 6Instructor/commentator:Yamamura
Comments:
- on politics, I think you can do a better job of delineating warrants between cards. For example, you read a few cards on plan unpopular, but make sure to articulate what the warrants are and why they are better than the aff warrants.
- I wouldn't bother extending this T violation. I don't think it's particularly convincing, and it seems like a negative time trade-off for you.
- you need to make sure you answer the aff's root cause claims. Especially when you are going for a CP, and want to leverage external offense, you have to make sure that the aff can't access your impacts either.
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!