Debating on: Topicality Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
1NC: You did a great job talking about why limits are important for negative preparation and clash. Combine this with a more specific explanation of why the affirmative unlimits the topic.
2NC: Be sure to signpost every argument that you respond to by saying “they say.” You did a great job of this once I reminded you. Good job explaining why it’s bad to make the topic too big. Explain in more detail why operations unlimit – you gave two examples, but it’s good to give more and explain why it’s too hard to research them. Be sure to answer reasonability – say they’re not reasonable, it’s too broad, and it’s arbitrary. Great coverage of the other 2AC arguments!
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: T Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
- Good content, but you need more energy! Give us a little more swag.
- Some of your arguments seem a bit repetitive. Strat skew vs. hurts strategic thinking, etc.
2NC
- Good answers on time skew. You might want to try and anticipate ways in which they'll say that counterplans are different than other arguments
- You might want to introduce some more general arguments why conditionality is good, apart from just responding to their arguments.
1AR
- I like your 'fuel to the fire' argument on time skew. But you don't really develop it. It 'kills fairness,' but how? You might just want to kick a few components so you can develop things a little bit better.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending da Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2ac: small thing - don't say "twenty twelve" just say "twelve" for a cite of '12 or 2012.
make sure you build in comparisons in the tags
add in more analytical arguments.
1ar:
I think you're right to read a nonunique card in this 1ar (given your strategy), but it may be better to read it after you have extended the argument.
Good to explain why postdate is important.
Your impact comparison is pretty detailed and filled with historical references. It was awesome - but I worry a little bit about your time allocation if this were a full debate. I hate to say cut any of it though. You did excellent job talking about the types of warrants in both your evidence and theirs and explained why yours was more true. Perhaps the way to resolve this time allocaiton issue is to not read the NU card.
redo 2 in the evening:
2ac redo: much better, although the 2ac structure is a little off. hard number arguments and give arguments - you get a bit paragraphy when you get to the impact calculus.
also don't say " extend our 1ac cards" for the start of an argument - start with the argument. so for example "warming is more short term - thats 1ac blah blah"
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: States CP + federalism DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments:Don’t over-prepare your speeches in these mini debates. In real debate rounds you don’t usually have time to type out entire paragraphs. Try to mirror that as much as possible. Highlight your evidence down! 2NC – you could be reading more cards on each 2AC argument—your goal is to bury the 2AC to make the 1AR more difficult. Remember to start by extending the relevant 1NC evidence. Answer the impact debate in order – it’s his first 2AC arg so you should go there first. 2NR – go in order of the 1AR arguments – incorporate evidence indicts into the appropriate places rather than making those arguments all at once. Need to extend that the perm links to the net benefit, not just that it doesn’t solve On the DA – be more offensive – extending the components to the DA, not just saying their ev is bad
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Capitalism K Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 1NC -- I like the inclusion of the Santos evidence
2NC -- really, really good. Excellent line-by-line and incorporation of 1NC evidence. You need an explanation of the alternative beyond "ethical communities" -- how does the alt function? It would also be good to include impact assessment that's comparative with the affirmative's impacts. Include root cause arguments, etc.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Practice debate #1 Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments:Don’t bend over your evidence, hold it up higher or put something on the table Good job cross applying Royal to the spending DA but it’s probably not necessary to read an additional economy impact Don’t take prep time for the 1NR! You already get all of 2NC prep, the 2NC, and the following cross-ex. It would be easier not to need prep if you and the 2N actually split the block, rather than both being responsible for various arguments for the other person. Also, the block is extending too many arguments CP – pretty good, but you failed to answer at least one argument (perm shields the politics link) and should read more evidence on each 2AC argument. In response to “states won’t spend,” you should point out that your CP fiats around that issue. Politics – good job extracting other ways US-Russian relations are important (although you didn’t have time to fully develop the other impacts to relations – this is why y’all need to extend fewer positions in the block!). *For your re-do – Extend the CP and politics, but not federalism (or federalism and CP but not politics). Be sure to answer the argument that the perm shields the link to politics. Read at least 2 cards on every 2AC argument.
Re-do -- Good!** Better coverage of 2AC arguments. As we talked about, integrate both your analytical arguments and the evidence. You could do some impact assessment on the federalism DA. Re-phrase your argument about conflict in the status quo to make it directly related to federalism. On the CP, your overview could go on the line-by-line in response to a solvency deficit.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: practice debate B Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 1NC – Good incorporation of analytical arguments.
Stop taking prep for the 1NR!! That is the cardinal sin of the 1N.
I’m not sure about this block strategy. Dropping the case in the block is generally not strategic.
1NR – you should read some more states solvency evidence. They have a few different warrants and your answers to the patchwork argument are pretty good, but you should also explain why fiat overwhelms the “states won’t spend” argument.
Be sure to be clear when you are moving from the CP to the politics DA. The “political capital not real” arguments are on politics, not the CP.
Need to read some evidence on the question of whether political capital is real/true. At the very least, explain how political capital works rather than just saying your cards prove it. When you returned to this issue later to indict their evidence, that was good, but it’s only a start.
1NR re-do -- Good. Include an impact comparison/assessment on the politics DA. Remember always to start by extending 1NC evidence against every 2AC argument on which you've already read a card (e.g., Jackson-Vanik repeal solves US-Russia relations). You could do more to answer the aff's "prefer our evidence" argument; give some reasons *your* evidence should be preferred and compare it to their argument. Also remember to point out that the perm links to the DA (you did this well in the debate, just forgot in the re-do).
Date of debate:
Debating on: Aff Mass trans with Racism Adv Instructor/commentator: Solice Comments:
Your 2AC was good as far as general coverage of line-by-line, but could have been more strategic as far as setting up the 1AR. The framework needs to be the focus here. If you win the framework the debate tilts significantly to your favor, so set it up for your partner to be strong there in the 1AR. The 2AC should also link the CP to the Politics DA by arguing that the CP will be extremely unpopular and will require more political capital than the plan, cut a card for this if you don’t have one. Add some lit checks to the T flow, get a stronger counter def and give your reasonability standard a warrant. This should pre-empt anyone going for this T against your aff.
Regarding Speaker issues: Actually mark your cards. Actually read all the cites. Go a little slower and be a little clearer on the ethics flow so that you make sense on this key issue in the round.
All – 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 Round D Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
In terms of the 2AC order, I would be sure to put the case at the beginning. It’s especially important to win your case first, because without it, you don’t have any offensive arguments. While you do have enough time in this case, it’s definitely important to prioritize what you need to answer in the 2AC.
I like the framing you have in your 2AR to win your framework arguments, but I would try to contextualize it more to your affirmative. Don’t just discuss deontology generally, but explain what specifically about the neg’s apocalyptic utilitarianism is bad.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Debate #1 Instructor/commentator: Baker Comments:
-in the 2ac, make sure to put the t or case first, the advocacies second, then the disads just in case you run short on time
-dont forget to make a theory argument about the status of the cp & the k
-in the 2AR, make sure to focus in on a particular strategy rather than just extending individual arguments
-try to eliminate all of the "um" from your speech - bet you'd gain about a full 40 seconds
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round 2 Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 1NC – your 1NC needs more defense on the case. Reading the oil DA on case is strategic, but should not trade off with making defensive arguments against all the advantages, including the oil impact (you need to say there’s no impact to peak oil).
1NR – I like the decision to extend T given 2AC coverage, but you could be more offensive about it – if they don’t meet their own counterinterpretation, the aff has nothing left. Be clear about why this matters, and why the 1AR should not get new answers.
Remember, when answering 2AC arguments, always to extend the 1NC evidence first!
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: 6/23
Debating on: TopicalityInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
1NC: You did a great job talking about why limits are important for negative preparation and clash. Combine this with a more specific explanation of why the affirmative unlimits the topic.
2NC: Be sure to signpost every argument that you respond to by saying “they say.” You did a great job of this once I reminded you. Good job explaining why it’s bad to make the topic too big. Explain in more detail why operations unlimit – you gave two examples, but it’s good to give more and explain why it’s too hard to research them. Be sure to answer reasonability – say they’re not reasonable, it’s too broad, and it’s arbitrary. Great coverage of the other 2AC arguments!
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: TInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
- Good content, but you need more energy! Give us a little more swag.
- Some of your arguments seem a bit repetitive. Strat skew vs. hurts strategic thinking, etc.
2NC
- Good answers on time skew. You might want to try and anticipate ways in which they'll say that counterplans are different than other arguments
- You might want to introduce some more general arguments why conditionality is good, apart from just responding to their arguments.
1AR
- I like your 'fuel to the fire' argument on time skew. But you don't really develop it. It 'kills fairness,' but how? You might just want to kick a few components so you can develop things a little bit better.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending daInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2ac: small thing - don't say "twenty twelve" just say "twelve" for a cite of '12 or 2012.
make sure you build in comparisons in the tags
add in more analytical arguments.
1ar:
I think you're right to read a nonunique card in this 1ar (given your strategy), but it may be better to read it after you have extended the argument.
Good to explain why postdate is important.
Your impact comparison is pretty detailed and filled with historical references. It was awesome - but I worry a little bit about your time allocation if this were a full debate. I hate to say cut any of it though. You did excellent job talking about the types of warrants in both your evidence and theirs and explained why yours was more true. Perhaps the way to resolve this time allocaiton issue is to not read the NU card.
redo 2 in the evening:
2ac redo: much better, although the 2ac structure is a little off. hard number arguments and give arguments - you get a bit paragraphy when you get to the impact calculus.
also don't say " extend our 1ac cards" for the start of an argument - start with the argument. so for example "warming is more short term - thats 1ac blah blah"
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: States CP + federalism DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Don’t over-prepare your speeches in these mini debates. In real debate rounds you don’t usually have time to type out entire paragraphs. Try to mirror that as much as possible. Highlight your evidence down!
2NC – you could be reading more cards on each 2AC argument—your goal is to bury the 2AC to make the 1AR more difficult. Remember to start by extending the relevant 1NC evidence.
Answer the impact debate in order – it’s his first 2AC arg so you should go there first.
2NR – go in order of the 1AR arguments – incorporate evidence indicts into the appropriate places rather than making those arguments all at once.
Need to extend that the perm links to the net benefit, not just that it doesn’t solve
On the DA – be more offensive – extending the components to the DA, not just saying their ev is bad
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Capitalism KInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC -- I like the inclusion of the Santos evidence
2NC -- really, really good. Excellent line-by-line and incorporation of 1NC evidence. You need an explanation of the alternative beyond "ethical communities" -- how does the alt function? It would also be good to include impact assessment that's comparative with the affirmative's impacts. Include root cause arguments, etc.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Practice debate #1Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Don’t bend over your evidence, hold it up higher or put something on the table
Good job cross applying Royal to the spending DA but it’s probably not necessary to read an additional economy impact
Don’t take prep time for the 1NR! You already get all of 2NC prep, the 2NC, and the following cross-ex. It would be easier not to need prep if you and the 2N actually split the block, rather than both being responsible for various arguments for the other person. Also, the block is extending too many arguments
CP – pretty good, but you failed to answer at least one argument (perm shields the politics link) and should read more evidence on each 2AC argument. In response to “states won’t spend,” you should point out that your CP fiats around that issue.
Politics – good job extracting other ways US-Russian relations are important (although you didn’t have time to fully develop the other impacts to relations – this is why y’all need to extend fewer positions in the block!).
*For your re-do – Extend the CP and politics, but not federalism (or federalism and CP but not politics). Be sure to answer the argument that the perm shields the link to politics. Read at least 2 cards on every 2AC argument.
Re-do -- Good!**
Better coverage of 2AC arguments.
As we talked about, integrate both your analytical arguments and the evidence.
You could do some impact assessment on the federalism DA. Re-phrase your argument about conflict in the status quo to make it directly related to federalism. On the CP, your overview could go on the line-by-line in response to a solvency deficit.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: practice debate BInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC – Good incorporation of analytical arguments.
Stop taking prep for the 1NR!! That is the cardinal sin of the 1N.
I’m not sure about this block strategy. Dropping the case in the block is generally not strategic.
1NR – you should read some more states solvency evidence. They have a few different warrants and your answers to the patchwork argument are pretty good, but you should also explain why fiat overwhelms the “states won’t spend” argument.
Be sure to be clear when you are moving from the CP to the politics DA. The “political capital not real” arguments are on politics, not the CP.
Need to read some evidence on the question of whether political capital is real/true. At the very least, explain how political capital works rather than just saying your cards prove it. When you returned to this issue later to indict their evidence, that was good, but it’s only a start.
1NR re-do -- Good. Include an impact comparison/assessment on the politics DA. Remember always to start by extending 1NC evidence against every 2AC argument on which you've already read a card (e.g., Jackson-Vanik repeal solves US-Russia relations). You could do more to answer the aff's "prefer our evidence" argument; give some reasons *your* evidence should be preferred and compare it to their argument. Also remember to point out that the perm links to the DA (you did this well in the debate, just forgot in the re-do).
Date of debate:
Debating on: Aff Mass trans with Racism AdvInstructor/commentator: Solice
Comments:
Your 2AC was good as far as general coverage of line-by-line, but could have been more strategic as far as setting up the 1AR. The framework needs to be the focus here. If you win the framework the debate tilts significantly to your favor, so set it up for your partner to be strong there in the 1AR. The 2AC should also link the CP to the Politics DA by arguing that the CP will be extremely unpopular and will require more political capital than the plan, cut a card for this if you don’t have one. Add some lit checks to the T flow, get a stronger counter def and give your reasonability standard a warrant. This should pre-empt anyone going for this T against your aff.
Regarding Speaker issues: Actually mark your cards. Actually read all the cites. Go a little slower and be a little clearer on the ethics flow so that you make sense on this key issue in the round.
All – 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 Round DInstructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
In terms of the 2AC order, I would be sure to put the case at the beginning. It’s especially important to win your case first, because without it, you don’t have any offensive arguments. While you do have enough time in this case, it’s definitely important to prioritize what you need to answer in the 2AC.
I like the framing you have in your 2AR to win your framework arguments, but I would try to contextualize it more to your affirmative. Don’t just discuss deontology generally, but explain what specifically about the neg’s apocalyptic utilitarianism is bad.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Debate #1Instructor/commentator: Baker
Comments:
-in the 2ac, make sure to put the t or case first, the advocacies second, then the disads just in case you run short on time
-dont forget to make a theory argument about the status of the cp & the k
-in the 2AR, make sure to focus in on a particular strategy rather than just extending individual arguments
-try to eliminate all of the "um" from your speech - bet you'd gain about a full 40 seconds
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament round 2Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC – your 1NC needs more defense on the case. Reading the oil DA on case is strategic, but should not trade off with making defensive arguments against all the advantages, including the oil impact (you need to say there’s no impact to peak oil).
1NR – I like the decision to extend T given 2AC coverage, but you could be more offensive about it – if they don’t meet their own counterinterpretation, the aff has nothing left. Be clear about why this matters, and why the 1AR should not get new answers.
Remember, when answering 2AC arguments, always to extend the 1NC evidence first!
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!