Debating on: Case Mini Debates Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
2AC: Great job referencing their arguments and responding to each of them in order! Try to be a little louder – it helps everyone here you and it makes you more persuasive!
Date of debate:6/23
Debating on: theory Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
great job numbering your arguments.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini Debate Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Good job summarizing and using evidence from the 1NC in the 2NC as well as doing evidence comparison
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/politics Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- Really good speech! You don't need to reference each 1NC card when you're answering off-case positions like DA's and CP's; the 2AC sets the structure for the rest of the debate.
Always remember to make a permutation when the neg reads a CP.
Make a "voting issue" argument at the end of your theory objections to the states CP.
You don't need to give reasons to prefer your evidence in the 2AC -- save that for the rebuttals.
1AR -- also good! You should be more focused on extending and developing 2AC arguments than on reading new evidence.
Great job extending diverse answers on the DA.
Date of debate:6/30
Debating on:K Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-very well done - just a little bit too long - try cutting out repetitive cards and/or arguments
-remember to speak up and project your voice
-don't forget about the big picture, make sure to discuss how the aff and the criticsm interact in addition to why youre right about hte individual arguments
Date of debate:7/2
Debating on: 2ac on Practice Debate A Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
4 minute sof prep for the 2ac is a bit too much - try to cut down on that
You do an *excellent* jobof line by line on the case. You talk about 1ac cards and read some cards as needed. it was great!
For the DA, you don't need to do the "they said, we said" part. the 2ac sets the structure since it is the second speech. Otherwise, awesome there too!
cx of 1nc: face the judge. You do a great job talking about the difference in short term and long term growth!
2ar: -
On the warming advantage, you do a good job saying it causes extinction, but describe the impact a bit more.
Also describe it as you help SLOW warming so that we have a chance to recover/avoid the bad effects.
You do a good job of describing how china will model the us. not sure i believe it :), but its a smart argument to make!
On the spending DA, you extend the claims and cites, but should talk a bit more about the reasons. Tell me WHY more government spending helps the economy.
With the extra minute and a half, i want you to explain why you help the economy (1. jobs 2. competitiveness) and why those things are MORE important for the economy than federal deficits/debt.
REDO IN THE EVENING:
good job talking about warming. talking about ag might not be what is in our 1ac impact card, though - so focus on what is there.
good job talking about how transportation spending is different than military allocations
you did an Awesome job comparing the economy internal link in terms of total dollar amounts, but also talk about how you would be a short term increase in the economy by providing more jobs - and that it would be more sustainable bc jobs will last a long time.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice debate B Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2AC
- Really nice job with organization. You've got that stuff down.
- Try to include more warrants in your case arguments. You do well explaining how infrastructure improves growth, but don't really explain how the NIB actually directs money in useful directions.
- Your 'federalism bad' arguments on the CP are not helpful. You might be able to argue that discrimination will undermine solvency, but that's a stretch. You really need to focus on the stimulus element of the plan. That's the key thing
- You assert some arguments that need cards in your speech. Like 'Romney winning now.'
- You have double-turned yourself on the Elections DA. You say that Romney will win now, the plan helps Obama, and Obama bad! Be careful about stuff like that.
2AR
- Good job. You cleaned up pretty much all of the confusions. The only real serious objection is that you didn't capitalize as well as you could have on the conceded arguments. When the 2NR fails to cover things, don't just respond to what they say. Figure out the things that have been dropped and how you will use them to help you.
Re-do
- This speech is too wishy-washy. You say the plan 'may cause economic problems' and this 'may cause war.' It can be useful to admit potential problems, but you should be a little more emphatic.
- Not having seen the 2AC it's a little hard to see how the debate went, but it seems like you're not really responding directly to 2AC arguments. It sounds more like you're just making your arguments and occasionally answering aff arguments.
- Your uniqueness evidence seems to say that there's a 50% chance of recession now. That probably hurts your DA a lot.
- I'm confused why you're comparing HSR to the national infrastructure bank at the end. Was that a CP??
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate D Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC – Good! Great line by line on case, except that you dropped a couple of arguments on the bottom of the economy advantage – make sure you keep flowing the entire 1NC so you get every argument.
On the capitalism K, when you extend the Mead impact, take a moment to explain why economic growth solves war; the neg’s argument is that the capitalist system generates war, so you want to prove that growth within the capitalist system is peaceful.
On the oil DA, great analytics, but you probably want to read at least one card, like a uniqueness card.
Spending DA – you don’t want to read a card that “nothing can stave off a new recession,” because your 1AC advantage is about preventing recession – if it’s true that nothing can prevent that, then your aff also doesn’t solve.
2AR – Repeat less of the negative argument as you answer it, especially on the case.
Extend more arguments on politics – it would help if there were more arguments in the 1AR, but Liz did extend a uniqueness argument, so you should definitely at least go for that.
On the permutation to the CP – extend the argument that the permutation shields the link to politics – this was explained well in the 1AR. The main benefit to a permutation is avoiding the net benefit.
Good job pointing out that the CP doesn’t solve the spending turns! Put that argument higher in your speech order – it’s a point of offense for you.
**For your redo, re-give the 2AR incorporating the above suggestions.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate D Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
Good 1NC – you were very clear and did a good job making a lot of arguments on the case. However, in the 1NC, you don’t want to read redundant cards. For example, you read 3 cards that made the claim that funding transportation would cause a deficit (link cards). You might want to just read one of these in the 1NC, allowing you to read cards elsewhere.
Try not to spend prep time before the 1NR if at all possible, use the 2NC speech and cross-ex time, so you don’t have to spend prep after. This time is also used by the 1AR to prep, so it’s best to be ready to go once the 2NC is done.
Good line by line in the 1nr – be sure when articulating that your cards are newer, to explain why that matters that your cards are newer.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 1 Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments:
I voted Affirmative because the Negative never responded to the 50 state fiat bad argument and the Aff won a high risk of the case. Since the DA and the Case both have the same impact, it is difficult for the negative to win the debate after they concede the adv debate in the 2NR.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 4 Instructor/commentator: Cancro Comments: 2AC was pretty good. If there is one thing to change, I would probably not read the answers to the downgrade scenario if he hasn't read it yet. Even if he will read it in the block, winning the IL to jobs and the other econ disad is probably more important than preempting a scenario he might not even read. As for teh 2AR, you MUST go to and answer specifically any and every argument that is labelled as "theory", a "voter" or "independent voting issue", or "RVI". Dropping something labelled in that way creates an easy way out for lazy judges, even if it isnt a very convincing argument or even a sensible one. In terms of substance, while you are doing more of it than your opponent, you could do a lot more to get under the primary claims of this debate, either by discussing the warrants and reasoning behind your evidences claims, or by indicting more that one of his authors.
If you have any other questions, or would like me to email you the excel workbook that I saved my flows, comments, and RFD to, email me at peterpcancro@gmail.com
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: Kernoff
Comments:
2AC: Great job referencing their arguments and responding to each of them in order! Try to be a little louder – it helps everyone here you and it makes you more persuasive!
Date of debate:6/23
Debating on: theoryInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
great job numbering your arguments.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini DebateInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Good job summarizing and using evidence from the 1NC in the 2NC as well as doing evidence comparison
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/politicsInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- Really good speech! You don't need to reference each 1NC card when you're answering off-case positions like DA's and CP's; the 2AC sets the structure for the rest of the debate.
Always remember to make a permutation when the neg reads a CP.
Make a "voting issue" argument at the end of your theory objections to the states CP.
You don't need to give reasons to prefer your evidence in the 2AC -- save that for the rebuttals.
1AR -- also good! You should be more focused on extending and developing 2AC arguments than on reading new evidence.
Great job extending diverse answers on the DA.
Date of debate:6/30
Debating on:KInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-very well done - just a little bit too long - try cutting out repetitive cards and/or arguments
-remember to speak up and project your voice
-don't forget about the big picture, make sure to discuss how the aff and the criticsm interact in addition to why youre right about hte individual arguments
Date of debate:7/2
Debating on: 2ac on Practice Debate AInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
4 minute sof prep for the 2ac is a bit too much - try to cut down on that
You do an *excellent* jobof line by line on the case. You talk about 1ac cards and read some cards as needed. it was great!
For the DA, you don't need to do the "they said, we said" part. the 2ac sets the structure since it is the second speech. Otherwise, awesome there too!
cx of 1nc: face the judge. You do a great job talking about the difference in short term and long term growth!
2ar: -
On the warming advantage, you do a good job saying it causes extinction, but describe the impact a bit more.
Also describe it as you help SLOW warming so that we have a chance to recover/avoid the bad effects.
You do a good job of describing how china will model the us. not sure i believe it :), but its a smart argument to make!
On the spending DA, you extend the claims and cites, but should talk a bit more about the reasons. Tell me WHY more government spending helps the economy.
With the extra minute and a half, i want you to explain why you help the economy (1. jobs 2. competitiveness) and why those things are MORE important for the economy than federal deficits/debt.
REDO IN THE EVENING:
good job talking about warming. talking about ag might not be what is in our 1ac impact card, though - so focus on what is there.
good job talking about how transportation spending is different than military allocations
you did an Awesome job comparing the economy internal link in terms of total dollar amounts, but also talk about how you would be a short term increase in the economy by providing more jobs - and that it would be more sustainable bc jobs will last a long time.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice debate BInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2AC
- Really nice job with organization. You've got that stuff down.
- Try to include more warrants in your case arguments. You do well explaining how infrastructure improves growth, but don't really explain how the NIB actually directs money in useful directions.
- Your 'federalism bad' arguments on the CP are not helpful. You might be able to argue that discrimination will undermine solvency, but that's a stretch. You really need to focus on the stimulus element of the plan. That's the key thing
- You assert some arguments that need cards in your speech. Like 'Romney winning now.'
- You have double-turned yourself on the Elections DA. You say that Romney will win now, the plan helps Obama, and Obama bad! Be careful about stuff like that.
2AR
- Good job. You cleaned up pretty much all of the confusions. The only real serious objection is that you didn't capitalize as well as you could have on the conceded arguments. When the 2NR fails to cover things, don't just respond to what they say. Figure out the things that have been dropped and how you will use them to help you.
Re-do
- This speech is too wishy-washy. You say the plan 'may cause economic problems' and this 'may cause war.' It can be useful to admit potential problems, but you should be a little more emphatic.
- Not having seen the 2AC it's a little hard to see how the debate went, but it seems like you're not really responding directly to 2AC arguments. It sounds more like you're just making your arguments and occasionally answering aff arguments.
- Your uniqueness evidence seems to say that there's a 50% chance of recession now. That probably hurts your DA a lot.
- I'm confused why you're comparing HSR to the national infrastructure bank at the end. Was that a CP??
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate DInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC – Good! Great line by line on case, except that you dropped a couple of arguments on the bottom of the economy advantage – make sure you keep flowing the entire 1NC so you get every argument.
On the capitalism K, when you extend the Mead impact, take a moment to explain why economic growth solves war; the neg’s argument is that the capitalist system generates war, so you want to prove that growth within the capitalist system is peaceful.
On the oil DA, great analytics, but you probably want to read at least one card, like a uniqueness card.
Spending DA – you don’t want to read a card that “nothing can stave off a new recession,” because your 1AC advantage is about preventing recession – if it’s true that nothing can prevent that, then your aff also doesn’t solve.
2AR – Repeat less of the negative argument as you answer it, especially on the case.
Extend more arguments on politics – it would help if there were more arguments in the 1AR, but Liz did extend a uniqueness argument, so you should definitely at least go for that.
On the permutation to the CP – extend the argument that the permutation shields the link to politics – this was explained well in the 1AR. The main benefit to a permutation is avoiding the net benefit.
Good job pointing out that the CP doesn’t solve the spending turns! Put that argument higher in your speech order – it’s a point of offense for you.
**For your redo, re-give the 2AR incorporating the above suggestions.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate DInstructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
Good 1NC – you were very clear and did a good job making a lot of arguments on the case. However, in the 1NC, you don’t want to read redundant cards. For example, you read 3 cards that made the claim that funding transportation would cause a deficit (link cards). You might want to just read one of these in the 1NC, allowing you to read cards elsewhere.
Try not to spend prep time before the 1NR if at all possible, use the 2NC speech and cross-ex time, so you don’t have to spend prep after. This time is also used by the 1AR to prep, so it’s best to be ready to go once the 2NC is done.
Good line by line in the 1nr – be sure when articulating that your cards are newer, to explain why that matters that your cards are newer.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 1Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
I voted Affirmative because the Negative never responded to the 50 state fiat bad argument and the Aff won a high risk of the case. Since the DA and the Case both have the same impact, it is difficult for the negative to win the debate after they concede the adv debate in the 2NR.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 4Instructor/commentator: Cancro
Comments: 2AC was pretty good. If there is one thing to change, I would probably not read the answers to the downgrade scenario if he hasn't read it yet. Even if he will read it in the block, winning the IL to jobs and the other econ disad is probably more important than preempting a scenario he might not even read. As for teh 2AR, you MUST go to and answer specifically any and every argument that is labelled as "theory", a "voter" or "independent voting issue", or "RVI". Dropping something labelled in that way creates an easy way out for lazy judges, even if it isnt a very convincing argument or even a sensible one. In terms of substance, while you are doing more of it than your opponent, you could do a lot more to get under the primary claims of this debate, either by discussing the warrants and reasoning behind your evidences claims, or by indicting more that one of his authors.
If you have any other questions, or would like me to email you the excel workbook that I saved my flows, comments, and RFD to, email me at peterpcancro@gmail.com
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!