Debating on: case mini-debate Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
Nice selection of arguments. You’re doing a good job of following the line by line and picking out the key arguments that you need to make. In particular, you did a nice job answering the ‘we’re in a recession now’ argument – not just saying the plan solves but also attempting to prove that things will continue to decline without the plan.
I’m really impressed that you stuck it out and finished up the speech. You’ve got the most difficult part out of the way and it should get a little bit less stressful every time after this.
Date of debate: 6/22
Debating on: topicality mini debates Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen Comments:
2NC: Be confident! The substance of your arguments is definitely on the right track! You do a nice job of explaining what your Interpretation is, and how the affirmative plan does not fall under "public" transportation infrastructure. You also do a nice job of referencing the 2AC arguments as a way to organize your speech. Make sure to explain why including a military affirmative would either make the topic too big or would hurt education.
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: Theory mini debates Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Great speeches! You did a really fantastic job with clash, answering the other side's specific arguments. Also, great job incorporating side bias arguments. Be sure always to include offensive arguments (why conditionality is *bad*) in addition to responding defensively to the other side's arguments. Also, whenever you say something is a voting issue, explain why. Good call grouping 2 related arguments!
You seemed very confident -- must be getting better from the above =)
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: states politics Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
your 2nr was so good! you did an excellent job of answering both the substance of the debate and the 50 state fiat theory. one argument that needs a little more explanation is your answers to political capital is not finite/doesn't trade off. You want to talk about how unpopular the plan was and how that hurts him.
Otherwise, awesome!
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:Disads Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-good use of analytic arguments
-extend your arguments before you answer the other sides arguments
Date of debate:7/2
Debating on: 1a in practice debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
Good job with your 1ac. You have 2 minutes left - so make sure you add more cards
CX of 1ac - don't say you spend enough to link to the spending DA!
1ar - used a minute of prep
Your 1ar is soo good!
I want you to do a few things for your redo
1. make sure you extend the impact of your advantages and explain why they are more important than the DA. Especially talk about the warming advantage
2. I want you to talk about why jobs are more important than fiscal discipline, but do not extend the empirically denied argument (since it takes out your advantage).
REDO:
you did an awesome job including these things. You're a little over 5 minutes, but not that big deal.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice debate B Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
1AC
- Really nice reading. Nice and clear, reasonably fast. Well presented.
CX
- Good questions in cross-ex. You just need to be louder! You've got a good sense of what is important to target in the neg's case arguments.
- You should stand up and face the judge. You're trying to persuade them, not the other team.
1AR
- It's awesome that you're citing specific 1AC evidence on the case debate. But there are a few times where you stumble a little bit trying to remember the name. If you can't recall it, that's fine.
- I think it's smart to read a new card or two, given that the whole 2NC was new evidence. So that's well done.
- It would be helpful to group things a bit more on the case. You respond to their arguments but aren't really developing your overall position. Try to make your arguments a little more offensive.
- That's a general theme for the speech, and it's more of an issue on the off-case positions. You should think about the role of the 1AR as extending the aff arguments that you want - and then responding to the neg arguments. You lose track of some really important aff arguments because you're just trying to respond. For example: you don't extend the no link on elections, which was dropped. You don't extend some of the good cards on capitalism. You don't extend (much) the key 'states can't fund stimulus' arguments on the CP.
You can identify these before the neg block as key thing and plan your 1AR accordingly. You DO need to respond to the neg block, but your first priority is winning key aff arguments.
- Be more clear when you switch pieces of paper. You didn't identify the jump from the K to the DA or to the CP.
- Get a timer if possible. Even just on your phone or something. You really want to be able to keep track of the time.
Re-do
- You got through case a lot quicker, which is good.
- I'd still like to see you devoting more time to developing the general argument of the aff. For a debate like this where the neg is just throwing stuff at you, you want to re-establish the connection with the judge so it can be clear.
- I think it would be helpful to develop the reason why Obama will cause war a bit more. You just say that it's possible, but WHY would there be war?
- I don't see why it matters if Romney cares about warming. How is that relevant?
- On the CP, it's nice to hear more about the importance of the FG, but you still should say more here. You're just asserting that states can't deficit spend, but that's only part of the issue. That means they will provide weak stimulus
- You got to the K with only about 45 seconds. You should really get here earlier. This is probably the most threatening thing they have in the debate. That said, you covered a lot of material on the K in that time. So if you had to get there with this much time, it wouldn't be the worst.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate D Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Good reading of the 1NC! You have nice pacing. You could project your voice a little bit more. In cross-ex, have more confidence! Your answers are good, but you don’t seem to believe them.
1AR – Try to stay organized! Your arguments are really good but it takes you too long to make arguments because of organizational problems.
Repeat less of the negative’s argument when you’re answering it – use 3 words or fewer.
Be more efficient on case – the block hasn’t developed any arguments significantly, so you can explain your evidence pretty quickly and move on.
Save more time for politics so that you can extend more than one argument.
**For your re-do – re-give the 1AR extending the same arguments, but more quickly and efficiently, so that you get to politics with more time.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate D Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
Be more confident in cross examination – you are asking good questions so don’t let the 1A make assertions to answer all of your questions. Follow up your questions, and ask your questions in a more argumentative matter.
Good 2NC – you’re doing a good job going line-by-line, but be sure to take the time to explain your own argument as well, instead of just responding to their claims. Why does your argument matter in the context of the affirmative.
You should also try to be a little bit louder in your 2nr; I couldn’t catch everything you said, but you are making good arguments, so be more confident and speak up!
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: The 1AC should do more to differentiate tags/cites from cards, including tonal, speed, and/or volume changes to signal judges. try to do more to emphasize important parts of the flow. For example, the argument you extend on Downgrade was made in the 2ac and not answered in the block, so you should point out that this is a CONCESSION, and functions as undisputed fact, which he cannot attack in the 2NR. Also, you might want to talk more about the warrants in some of your cards, as the S and econ advantage debateas are both very mcuh "he says" "I say".
Lastly, if you have any other questions, or would like me to email you the excel workbook with my flows, comments, and RFD, contact 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-debateInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
Nice selection of arguments. You’re doing a good job of following the line by line and picking out the key arguments that you need to make. In particular, you did a nice job answering the ‘we’re in a recession now’ argument – not just saying the plan solves but also attempting to prove that things will continue to decline without the plan.
I’m really impressed that you stuck it out and finished up the speech. You’ve got the most difficult part out of the way and it should get a little bit less stressful every time after this.
Date of debate: 6/22
Debating on: topicality mini debatesInstructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen
Comments:
2NC: Be confident! The substance of your arguments is definitely on the right track! You do a nice job of explaining what your Interpretation is, and how the affirmative plan does not fall under "public" transportation infrastructure. You also do a nice job of referencing the 2AC arguments as a way to organize your speech. Make sure to explain why including a military affirmative would either make the topic too big or would hurt education.
Date of debate: 6/25
Debating on: Theory mini debatesInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great speeches! You did a really fantastic job with clash, answering the other side's specific arguments. Also, great job incorporating side bias arguments. Be sure always to include offensive arguments (why conditionality is *bad*) in addition to responding defensively to the other side's arguments. Also, whenever you say something is a voting issue, explain why. Good call grouping 2 related arguments!
You seemed very confident -- must be getting better from the above =)
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: states politicsInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
your 2nr was so good! you did an excellent job of answering both the substance of the debate and the 50 state fiat theory. one argument that needs a little more explanation is your answers to political capital is not finite/doesn't trade off. You want to talk about how unpopular the plan was and how that hurts him.
Otherwise, awesome!
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:DisadsInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-good use of analytic arguments
-extend your arguments before you answer the other sides arguments
Date of debate:7/2
Debating on: 1a in practice debateInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Good job with your 1ac. You have 2 minutes left - so make sure you add more cards
CX of 1ac - don't say you spend enough to link to the spending DA!
1ar - used a minute of prep
Your 1ar is soo good!
I want you to do a few things for your redo
1. make sure you extend the impact of your advantages and explain why they are more important than the DA. Especially talk about the warming advantage
2. I want you to talk about why jobs are more important than fiscal discipline, but do not extend the empirically denied argument (since it takes out your advantage).
REDO:
you did an awesome job including these things. You're a little over 5 minutes, but not that big deal.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice debate BInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
1AC
- Really nice reading. Nice and clear, reasonably fast. Well presented.
CX
- Good questions in cross-ex. You just need to be louder! You've got a good sense of what is important to target in the neg's case arguments.
- You should stand up and face the judge. You're trying to persuade them, not the other team.
1AR
- It's awesome that you're citing specific 1AC evidence on the case debate. But there are a few times where you stumble a little bit trying to remember the name. If you can't recall it, that's fine.
- I think it's smart to read a new card or two, given that the whole 2NC was new evidence. So that's well done.
- It would be helpful to group things a bit more on the case. You respond to their arguments but aren't really developing your overall position. Try to make your arguments a little more offensive.
- That's a general theme for the speech, and it's more of an issue on the off-case positions. You should think about the role of the 1AR as extending the aff arguments that you want - and then responding to the neg arguments. You lose track of some really important aff arguments because you're just trying to respond. For example: you don't extend the no link on elections, which was dropped. You don't extend some of the good cards on capitalism. You don't extend (much) the key 'states can't fund stimulus' arguments on the CP.
You can identify these before the neg block as key thing and plan your 1AR accordingly. You DO need to respond to the neg block, but your first priority is winning key aff arguments.
- Be more clear when you switch pieces of paper. You didn't identify the jump from the K to the DA or to the CP.
- Get a timer if possible. Even just on your phone or something. You really want to be able to keep track of the time.
Re-do
- You got through case a lot quicker, which is good.
- I'd still like to see you devoting more time to developing the general argument of the aff. For a debate like this where the neg is just throwing stuff at you, you want to re-establish the connection with the judge so it can be clear.
- I think it would be helpful to develop the reason why Obama will cause war a bit more. You just say that it's possible, but WHY would there be war?
- I don't see why it matters if Romney cares about warming. How is that relevant?
- On the CP, it's nice to hear more about the importance of the FG, but you still should say more here. You're just asserting that states can't deficit spend, but that's only part of the issue. That means they will provide weak stimulus
- You got to the K with only about 45 seconds. You should really get here earlier. This is probably the most threatening thing they have in the debate. That said, you covered a lot of material on the K in that time. So if you had to get there with this much time, it wouldn't be the worst.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice debate DInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good reading of the 1NC! You have nice pacing. You could project your voice a little bit more. In cross-ex, have more confidence! Your answers are good, but you don’t seem to believe them.
1AR – Try to stay organized! Your arguments are really good but it takes you too long to make arguments because of organizational problems.
Repeat less of the negative’s argument when you’re answering it – use 3 words or fewer.
Be more efficient on case – the block hasn’t developed any arguments significantly, so you can explain your evidence pretty quickly and move on.
Save more time for politics so that you can extend more than one argument.
**For your re-do – re-give the 1AR extending the same arguments, but more quickly and efficiently, so that you get to politics with more time.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate DInstructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
Be more confident in cross examination – you are asking good questions so don’t let the 1A make assertions to answer all of your questions. Follow up your questions, and ask your questions in a more argumentative matter.
Good 2NC – you’re doing a good job going line-by-line, but be sure to take the time to explain your own argument as well, instead of just responding to their claims. Why does your argument matter in the context of the affirmative.
You should also try to be a little bit louder in your 2nr; I couldn’t catch everything you said, but you are making good arguments, so be more confident and speak up!
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: The 1AC should do more to differentiate tags/cites from cards, including tonal, speed, and/or volume changes to signal judges. try to do more to emphasize important parts of the flow. For example, the argument you extend on Downgrade was made in the 2ac and not answered in the block, so you should point out that this is a CONCESSION, and functions as undisputed fact, which he cannot attack in the 2NR. Also, you might want to talk more about the warrants in some of your cards, as the S and econ advantage debateas are both very mcuh "he says" "I say".
Lastly, if you have any other questions, or would like me to email you the excel workbook with my flows, comments, and RFD, contact me at peterpcancro@gmail.com
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!