Debating on: case mini debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew Comments:
- group 1nc analytics a bit more thematically and describe the many reasons the internal link is short term so that you can do more with it in the block.
- try to remove party politics from your 2nc discussion
- don't be funny if you forget the joke half way through it :)
- use party politics in a more strategic way - talk about arguments as controversial not as popular or unpopular or democratic/republican. It's less likely to mess with your DA links and much harder to answer.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T - military ≠ public Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 1NC -- need to work a bit on clarity
2NR -- Good case list! Strong way to start the 2NR. When debating limits, remember to emphasize the competitive (as well as educational) loss to the negative if the topic is unlimited. Do more work on competing interpretations vs. reasonability -- why is competing interpretations more objective? Answer the argument that competing interpretations causes a race to the bottom.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: t mini debate re-do 2NR Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments: 2NR T
You ramble off a bunch of stuff (presumably an aff case list?) at the top of your 2AR, but there is no context for this case list. Slow down a bit and give me context - why does this expansive case list from the Space Topic prove that the inclusion of military infrastructure would unlimit the current topic? Good job of collapsing down to key areas of the flow - you say "on to the limits debate" which makes it easier for me to flow organizationally. It also means you can group arguments and efficiently get through your 2NR. You state "the aff is just not reasonable" - this is a claim without any sort of warrant (merely an assertion). Insert a "because" here or just hammer down on "competing interpretations = best way to evaluate the T debate."
Date of debate:6/28
Debating on: stats/federalism Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
your 2ac is SUPER paragraphy. we walked through tagging some of these arguments and minimizing.
Also, while making your methodology goo answers are helpful, it is also important to make implementation policy type questions.
redo this 2ac!
1ar: - i think the problem with your aff, at this point, is that there is no description of your methodology. what is the rubric for the debate? perhaps explaining that and then explaining it in context of the other args would be more helpful.
you should press the link on federalism more significantly. inter state commerce should be a major part of this 1ar.
push back on the impacts to federalism in a non gooey way.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 1AR Redo Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Explain why the methodology of the CP is bad, then why your method is good, then go for the args why that needs to come first. Your are doing the opposite first. I might get rid of the entire method section of this speech -I need some more explanation of what the "Alterity impact turn"
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/DA Theory Mini Debate Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Need to spend more time on 50 states fiat in the 2NC -Need to have a gut check solvency moment where you explain exactly what your are fiating and what the CP would look like -Be sure to reference 1NC ev on the DA when explaining the story, thought you were making good evidence based distinctions on the line by line though
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: 1AR Redo on DA, Case Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments:
-When extending a dropped theory arg its important to stick very closely to the args you had in the 2NC and spend your time boxing out why they dont get any new answers. No longer than 30 seconds
-Try to explain your adv internal links to bolster the no solvency args that youre going to make on the CP debate
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate B (Neg maverick) Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
If you are going to commit to the 1-off kritik approach in the 1NC, there are some essential things you need to do in the neg block and 2NR if you want to have a shot at winning.
1. After the 1NC, there is barely a discussion of the alternative or impact to the security K in the neg block. This is very problematic, particularly because the aff is consistently making arguments about why rejecting security logic can't solve economic collapse, US-Russian relations, etc. in the short term, which is why the permutation solves best. In the 2NR, there is no extension of an impact. I understand you're trying to go for "methodology outweighs" but if this is the case, you should make sure to answer the aff's perm that "we can still do the plan and question our methodology - case is a net-benefit."
2. You need to extend the alternative and explain how it functions in the debate round. If I reject security logic, what does the world of the alternative look like?
Date of debate:7/7
Debating on:Practice Debate D Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-strive for specificity in your impact arguments when dealing with the case
-your value to life outweighs argument is too circular/definitional - use the language of your evidence to describe its consequences
-if your strategy is to impact turn realism straight up, you need to invest more time in it. a more effective strat in this case is to combine some of those args with an alternative solves claim
-you need a stronger substantive focus on framework
-keep your own flow
-when you're conceeding a possible double turn you need to nail it down - describe the mistake as it happened, do late impact calculus, & make shielding args
-the Pan argument seems to be an unecessary risk
Date of debate:
Debating on: redo 1AR Instructor/commentator: gjerpen Comments:
1AR: You should have more non-theory arguments on the CP - you spend a lot of time on the 50 state fiat debate, but you need to be spending more time on the no solvency and perm debates. The utility of reading the mass transit aff is to able to heg your social justice arguments versus utilitarian impacts. You should do this in the 1AR.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: SA RR R1 Instructor/commentator: Jackie Comments:
Good speeches in general, you're a pretty good speaker minus the SUPER distracting hand gestures. You look like you're trying to karate chop invisible ninjas. Stop it.
The VTL debate could have been improved by answering the neg's warrants of "human life being immeasurable" - you finally do a little of this in the 2NR by saying that it's a matter of government measuring lives, but you don't really apply this to their argument, and it should be made earlier, instead of the "agrophobia" form of VTL that you end up arguing. You don't want to impose a VTL on other people, you want to claim that the government will because of security.
Going for methodology first was a good choice, but you should also have more policy impacts to the kritik - the escalatory conflict/deterrence fails arguments were good in this regard, but you should have more of them and also weigh them against the aff's advantages. You should capitalize on aff concessions more - ie, the africa link - you point it out but don't really describe what that does for the debate/your argument.
2NR was the right choice; you should make sure to either extend case answers on China in the 2NC (or if you run out of time like this, make the 1NR do it). Better to have a slightly less carded politics disad than drop half of the case.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament rd. 2 Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
- I would shy away from talking about Wal-Mart as the location that you need transit to access. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of availability for the working poor. And it's not the most compelling demonstration of your resistance to structures of neoliberalism, etc. Particularly given the Urban Sprawl DA.
- I don't really get where you're going with 'filer the plan text through the solvency evidence.' Do you just mean the context of the debate? Why wouldn't the negative's critique evidence (for example) equally relevant for filtering the plan?
1AR
- Good job on T. You only spent a minute and didn't let the full 1NR treatment drag you into wasting time here.
- I think you need a lot more time on the case. Your whole aff strategy relies on winning that A) the aff is a significant positive pragmatic contribution to public policy and B) it provokes significant social movements. Without answering the details of all the case arguments, you descend to the level of pure generality. Which takes out the link to both of the things you need to win. You have to be a lot more specific about how your aff actually, really challenges the practices of capitalism.
- Your overview on the K says that 'method first' moots the rest of the 1AC. Well, so what? You need to impact that. Explain this as a problem in terms of the K.
- I think you need more on the dependency arguments. You're relying on the movements to solve this, but the dependency link (if they win it) short-circuits precisely those movements. You're banking a lot on some ill-explained small pieces of the aff.
- I don't think 'we just provide basic features of life, like health care' gets you out of the link. It may prove that it's WORTH taking the risk. But you're not really framing it that way.
- You need to engage the line by line on the K more. You jump straight down to the bottom and just go for the perm and alt stuff. But without the middle part of the debate, this is not as clear as it could be.
- You need to win the LINK to the Gibson-Graham argument. It's not so obvious that it goes without saying.
- With a full minute to spend on theory, you should pose a more serious threat. At the very least you need to answer all the neg arguments.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Round 3 Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
2NC: It's not clear how the case argument you extended is different from the K debate. I think it would be less confusing to just put them on the same sheet of paper. Your overview is pretty good, but should be adjusted a bit more to account for the fact that you're debating mass transit. Talking about how we shouldn't be calculating lives lost isn't helpful against an aff like this (it may answer transition wars, but you should make the argument there then). Good job dismissing the various ridiculous permutations. Be more specific about how the kritik turns/outweighs the case. It would be helpful to organize the link debate a bit more - if you have three main link arguments, for instance, identify them. That makes it easier to pick and choose and separate them in the 2NR.
2NR: Pretty good coverage of aff arguments and explanation of your own. Again, the main thing you need is more organization. I like your answer to the "people need to eat" argument - capitalism ensures if people have access, prices will go up. I'm not sure that Occupy Wall Street is a good example of what your alternative can achieve.
RFD: I voted negative. The affirmative banked the 2AR on the argument that we need specific, concrete strategies to resist capitalism rather than theoretical absolutism that doesn't go anywhere. While this is a good argument, the 2AR failed to defend that the plan was a workable solution. For instance, the 2AR spent a lot of time talking about why the plan is necessary to get people access to food. But there was no answer to the 2NC/2NR argument that capitalists will maximize profit by raising prices as soon as people will get there. The 2AR also extended climate change but didn't answer the argument that it was new or that they didn't solve most emissions. While I am pretty skeptical of the alternative and some of the neg's examples seem pretty silly, they do defend it more specifically than the affirmative defends their plan.
Date of debate: 7/10
Commentator: Yamamura
Comments
-Thought the 1ar was pretty good, with good coverage overall.
- For politics, try to get a little bit more in-depth on answering the block's specific arguments (i.e. you extend that there won't be a vote until after the election, but don't answer the 2NC's responses to your 2AC argument)
-Make sure you do a little bit more to answer the impact calculus in the 2NC as well, such as their extinction comes frist claims.
-if you want to concede the uniqueness debate and go for uniqueness overwhelsmm the link, I would try to do this in conjunction with a PC doesn't spillover, or a no link argument - that way you have some specific way to articular ewhy the plan doesn't affect PNTR passage in addition to the cards they read in the block.
Table of Contents
Date of debate: 6/21
Debating on: case mini debateInstructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew
Comments:
- group 1nc analytics a bit more thematically and describe the many reasons the internal link is short term so that you can do more with it in the block.
- try to remove party politics from your 2nc discussion
- don't be funny if you forget the joke half way through it :)
- use party politics in a more strategic way - talk about arguments as controversial not as popular or unpopular or democratic/republican. It's less likely to mess with your DA links and much harder to answer.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T - military ≠ publicInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC -- need to work a bit on clarity
2NR -- Good case list! Strong way to start the 2NR. When debating limits, remember to emphasize the competitive (as well as educational) loss to the negative if the topic is unlimited. Do more work on competing interpretations vs. reasonability -- why is competing interpretations more objective? Answer the argument that competing interpretations causes a race to the bottom.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: t mini debate re-do 2NRInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
2NR T
You ramble off a bunch of stuff (presumably an aff case list?) at the top of your 2AR, but there is no context for this case list. Slow down a bit and give me context - why does this expansive case list from the Space Topic prove that the inclusion of military infrastructure would unlimit the current topic? Good job of collapsing down to key areas of the flow - you say "on to the limits debate" which makes it easier for me to flow organizationally. It also means you can group arguments and efficiently get through your 2NR. You state "the aff is just not reasonable" - this is a claim without any sort of warrant (merely an assertion). Insert a "because" here or just hammer down on "competing interpretations = best way to evaluate the T debate."
Date of debate:6/28
Debating on: stats/federalismInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
your 2ac is SUPER paragraphy. we walked through tagging some of these arguments and minimizing.
Also, while making your methodology goo answers are helpful, it is also important to make implementation policy type questions.
redo this 2ac!
1ar: - i think the problem with your aff, at this point, is that there is no description of your methodology. what is the rubric for the debate? perhaps explaining that and then explaining it in context of the other args would be more helpful.
you should press the link on federalism more significantly. inter state commerce should be a major part of this 1ar.
push back on the impacts to federalism in a non gooey way.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: 1AR RedoInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Explain why the methodology of the CP is bad, then why your method is good, then go for the args why that needs to come first. Your are doing the opposite first. I might get rid of the entire method section of this speech
-I need some more explanation of what the "Alterity impact turn"
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/DA Theory Mini DebateInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Need to spend more time on 50 states fiat in the 2NC
-Need to have a gut check solvency moment where you explain exactly what your are fiating and what the CP would look like
-Be sure to reference 1NC ev on the DA when explaining the story, thought you were making good evidence based distinctions on the line by line though
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: 1AR Redo on DA, CaseInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-When extending a dropped theory arg its important to stick very closely to the args you had in the 2NC and spend your time boxing out why they dont get any new answers. No longer than 30 seconds
-Try to explain your adv internal links to bolster the no solvency args that youre going to make on the CP debate
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate B (Neg maverick)Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
If you are going to commit to the 1-off kritik approach in the 1NC, there are some essential things you need to do in the neg block and 2NR if you want to have a shot at winning.
1. After the 1NC, there is barely a discussion of the alternative or impact to the security K in the neg block. This is very problematic, particularly because the aff is consistently making arguments about why rejecting security logic can't solve economic collapse, US-Russian relations, etc. in the short term, which is why the permutation solves best. In the 2NR, there is no extension of an impact. I understand you're trying to go for "methodology outweighs" but if this is the case, you should make sure to answer the aff's perm that "we can still do the plan and question our methodology - case is a net-benefit."
2. You need to extend the alternative and explain how it functions in the debate round. If I reject security logic, what does the world of the alternative look like?
Date of debate:7/7
Debating on:Practice Debate DInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-strive for specificity in your impact arguments when dealing with the case
-your value to life outweighs argument is too circular/definitional - use the language of your evidence to describe its consequences
-if your strategy is to impact turn realism straight up, you need to invest more time in it. a more effective strat in this case is to combine some of those args with an alternative solves claim
-you need a stronger substantive focus on framework
-keep your own flow
-when you're conceeding a possible double turn you need to nail it down - describe the mistake as it happened, do late impact calculus, & make shielding args
-the Pan argument seems to be an unecessary risk
Date of debate:
Debating on: redo 1ARInstructor/commentator: gjerpen
Comments:
1AR: You should have more non-theory arguments on the CP - you spend a lot of time on the 50 state fiat debate, but you need to be spending more time on the no solvency and perm debates. The utility of reading the mass transit aff is to able to heg your social justice arguments versus utilitarian impacts. You should do this in the 1AR.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: SA RR R1Instructor/commentator: Jackie
Comments:
Good speeches in general, you're a pretty good speaker minus the SUPER distracting hand gestures. You look like you're trying to karate chop invisible ninjas. Stop it.
The VTL debate could have been improved by answering the neg's warrants of "human life being immeasurable" - you finally do a little of this in the 2NR by saying that it's a matter of government measuring lives, but you don't really apply this to their argument, and it should be made earlier, instead of the "agrophobia" form of VTL that you end up arguing. You don't want to impose a VTL on other people, you want to claim that the government will because of security.
Going for methodology first was a good choice, but you should also have more policy impacts to the kritik - the escalatory conflict/deterrence fails arguments were good in this regard, but you should have more of them and also weigh them against the aff's advantages. You should capitalize on aff concessions more - ie, the africa link - you point it out but don't really describe what that does for the debate/your argument.
2NR was the right choice; you should make sure to either extend case answers on China in the 2NC (or if you run out of time like this, make the 1NR do it). Better to have a slightly less carded politics disad than drop half of the case.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament rd. 2Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
- I would shy away from talking about Wal-Mart as the location that you need transit to access. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of availability for the working poor. And it's not the most compelling demonstration of your resistance to structures of neoliberalism, etc. Particularly given the Urban Sprawl DA.
- I don't really get where you're going with 'filer the plan text through the solvency evidence.' Do you just mean the context of the debate? Why wouldn't the negative's critique evidence (for example) equally relevant for filtering the plan?
1AR
- Good job on T. You only spent a minute and didn't let the full 1NR treatment drag you into wasting time here.
- I think you need a lot more time on the case. Your whole aff strategy relies on winning that A) the aff is a significant positive pragmatic contribution to public policy and B) it provokes significant social movements. Without answering the details of all the case arguments, you descend to the level of pure generality. Which takes out the link to both of the things you need to win. You have to be a lot more specific about how your aff actually, really challenges the practices of capitalism.
- Your overview on the K says that 'method first' moots the rest of the 1AC. Well, so what? You need to impact that. Explain this as a problem in terms of the K.
- I think you need more on the dependency arguments. You're relying on the movements to solve this, but the dependency link (if they win it) short-circuits precisely those movements. You're banking a lot on some ill-explained small pieces of the aff.
- I don't think 'we just provide basic features of life, like health care' gets you out of the link. It may prove that it's WORTH taking the risk. But you're not really framing it that way.
- You need to engage the line by line on the K more. You jump straight down to the bottom and just go for the perm and alt stuff. But without the middle part of the debate, this is not as clear as it could be.
- You need to win the LINK to the Gibson-Graham argument. It's not so obvious that it goes without saying.
- With a full minute to spend on theory, you should pose a more serious threat. At the very least you need to answer all the neg arguments.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Round 3Instructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
2NC: It's not clear how the case argument you extended is different from the K debate. I think it would be less confusing to just put them on the same sheet of paper. Your overview is pretty good, but should be adjusted a bit more to account for the fact that you're debating mass transit. Talking about how we shouldn't be calculating lives lost isn't helpful against an aff like this (it may answer transition wars, but you should make the argument there then). Good job dismissing the various ridiculous permutations. Be more specific about how the kritik turns/outweighs the case. It would be helpful to organize the link debate a bit more - if you have three main link arguments, for instance, identify them. That makes it easier to pick and choose and separate them in the 2NR.
2NR: Pretty good coverage of aff arguments and explanation of your own. Again, the main thing you need is more organization. I like your answer to the "people need to eat" argument - capitalism ensures if people have access, prices will go up. I'm not sure that Occupy Wall Street is a good example of what your alternative can achieve.
RFD: I voted negative. The affirmative banked the 2AR on the argument that we need specific, concrete strategies to resist capitalism rather than theoretical absolutism that doesn't go anywhere. While this is a good argument, the 2AR failed to defend that the plan was a workable solution. For instance, the 2AR spent a lot of time talking about why the plan is necessary to get people access to food. But there was no answer to the 2NC/2NR argument that capitalists will maximize profit by raising prices as soon as people will get there. The 2AR also extended climate change but didn't answer the argument that it was new or that they didn't solve most emissions. While I am pretty skeptical of the alternative and some of the neg's examples seem pretty silly, they do defend it more specifically than the affirmative defends their plan.
Date of debate: 7/10
Commentator: Yamamura
Comments
-Thought the 1ar was pretty good, with good coverage overall.
- For politics, try to get a little bit more in-depth on answering the block's specific arguments (i.e. you extend that there won't be a vote until after the election, but don't answer the 2NC's responses to your 2AC argument)
-Make sure you do a little bit more to answer the impact calculus in the 2NC as well, such as their extinction comes frist claims.
-if you want to concede the uniqueness debate and go for uniqueness overwhelsmm the link, I would try to do this in conjunction with a PC doesn't spillover, or a no link argument - that way you have some specific way to articular ewhy the plan doesn't affect PNTR passage in addition to the cards they read in the block.