Debating on: Case Mini Debate Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
1NC: Great job coming up with analytical arguments and mixing them in with cards! When you make your argument, don’t say “I said that…” – just launch straight into the argument.
2AC: Great job refuting each argument in order. I like how you specifically referred to your plan and what it said. You have a very solid 2AC – to make it great, you could work on incorporating multiple responses to their arguments when appropriate and referring to 1AC evidence.
2NC: Great job picking one argument to extend. I like how you not only said their evidence is old, but also talked about what has changed – this makes your argument even better! You could read an additional piece of evidence in the 2NC to support your argument.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: Topicality Instructor/commentator: Baker Comments:
-make sure to read the evidence that you are referencing - if it doesn't get read it doesn't count
-good explanation of reasonability
-make sure to answer the arguments the other team makes
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: Theory Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2nc: your arguments are so good. Next step is to number the arguments so that they are treated as separate arguments. Especially awesome you made a counter interp.
redo of 2nc: awesome job organizing and hard numbering your arguments!
2ac on condo bad: - version 2 was perfect. remember to explain your arguments when you make it and that all theory arguments are about fairness and education
1ar: You need to give reasons for all of your arguments. Don't forget to extend the VI.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP mini debate Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2AC
- Good explanation of the permutation! Once you read the evidence to support the claims, it got even better.
- It seems like you have a good grasp of how to make the permutation as an argument, but you want MORE stuff going on than just that.
2NC
- Great job. Awesome line-by-line skills, several good answers to each aff argument, and a very nice, persuasive voice.
- Good on the #1. You incorporated my advice to Peter, and included the offensive argument.
- You've got the essence of the argument on the #2 (flexibility), but I'd like to hear you develop the argument more. Explain the process more. Also, I think you're reading the card here that was already read in the 1NC. No need to re-read it - just explain it.
- You probably read more cards than are really necessary. It's not a terrible problem, since you're still making good analytic arguments, but this may be a bit of a waste of time.
1AR
- Great job on the #1. You extend your argument, quickly answer their argument and then move on that. That's exactly what the 1AR needs to do
- The main thing to improve is to give a slightly more developed explanation of why a single bank is valuable. That's implied but not really clearly stated.
- Make it clear that you're talking about the perm when you get there. You say pretty much what you need to, but it helps to be specific.
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- remember to make arguments about why 50 state fiat is bad. It is an important tool against this CP! (partly my bad for not reminding you)
In the 1AR, remember to extend warrants to all your arguments. You could also be more responsive to block development.
Date of debate:6/30
Debating on:K Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-make sure to avoid over explaining the perm in the 2ac - often times taking a stance early on the permutation destroys the flexibility you need to deal with the blocks arguments later
-try to vary your analytic and evidence based arguments to make them easier to flow
-work on filling the time allotted
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: practice debate A Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
1NC
- Nice reading. Clear and a nice loud voice.
- Be clear when you're switching from one argument to the next. You didn't clearly identify the shift from the CP to the DA, or from the DA to the case, etc.
- You need to change your CP text for every specific debate. The stuff that's in the parentheses in the file means that you have to insert a specific explanation of what the counterplan does.
- Some of your case arguments are a bit repetitive.
- You want to separate the case arguments onto separate sheets of paper so they can respond directly to different advantages.
- It would also be helpful to diversify the arguments a little bit. Get some defense against global warming from the file about that, for example.
CX
- You're doing fine answering the questions, but try and look at the judge, not down at your paper.
1NR
- Great line by line. This is exactly the format you want to use. Extend, explain, and respond to their arguments.
- For your re-do, you should mostly focus on expanding the arguments. Why precisely won't people want to ride high speed rail? Why exactly doesn't it help the economy? Why do construction efforts hurt the environment? You extend these arguments, but it would be better if you can give the judge some details to think about.
- The new card on competitiveness is really useful, but usually you can't read this kind of thing new in the rebuttals. It would be much better to put this in the original 1NC. In this debate, where it WASN'T in the constructive, it's a good idea to include it. But it would be better earlier.
- You might want to follow that lead and ALSO read a card on defense for the global warming impact.
- I was a little confused by one argument. You said that HSR will cause people to drive more. I don't know why that would be true. So maybe cut that out, or explain more how it makes sense.
Re-do
- Try to compare what the airports will actually accomplish vs. what the new HSR will be able to do. For example, airports really help to get people long distances. That's a major component of HSR. It doesn't do much for local travel, of course, but that's a separate question.
- I would also extend the #3, about people not wanting to use cars.
- Try to focus a little bit more on how your argument will interact with the aff's at a terminal level. You do a lot of explanation of things that seem incidental (environmental effects in general, for example). The whole aff advantage is that CO2 emissions are bad. So you need to argue that the plan fails in regard to THAT. Develop the argument more.
- Would like to hear more about how HSR won't bolster the economy.
Second re-do
- Really great job. This is a massive improvement from the first version this afternoon! You have a ton more arguments and really do a lot of damage to the aff.
- I like that you're doing more to clearly extend authors, by name and by argument. That's fantastic. You also do a good job inserting the warrants from the cards (the Amtrak example, the general tendencies of people, etc.)
- Nice job on the car-based arguments. You make the basic argument clearly and do a good job explaining why the US is different.
- I still think you could do more to prove that the plan would increase CO2 emissions, but you're definitely engaging it a bunch more.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate B Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -When you give the order in the 1NC, all you need to say is the number of off case arguments and then the order of the case pages -Don't need to read the war impact to the spending DA because the Aff has already made that argument in the 1AC -Try not to take prep time for the 1NR, there is so much prep time built into the speech and you always want to be prepared by the time CX is up -Need to summarize and do the 1NR with more passion and quickness. I want you to focus on being an engaging speaker and it will help you win some of these points. -You should read more cards in the 1NR, especially on the DA. Explain why it outweighs the case and try to bolster the arguments of theirs that you think are the most threatening. On the DA, stick to their arguments in the order that they made them and try to attack their evidence and build up your own.
Date of debate:7/8
Debating on: Round 1 Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell Comments: You did very well, especially since your partner is sick and you had to go alone. I know that you're uncomfortable being maverick, but dont worry. Your handeling everything perfectly. If you just calm down and focus, you will preform brilliantly during the rest of the tourney. I know that the speech was prewritten, however, I think if you kept a better flow then you would be bale to answer more of their case arguments. Also, the "They Say, We Say" model is best for trying to go line by line until you get better at it. The flows got a little messy.
Date of debate:7/9 Debating on:Round 3 Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
awesome job! especially considering you were debating maverick.
you did well in 1NC cross-ex explaining your arguments clearly.
2NC - Good job on the case - going line-by-line and extending your evidence. If possible, you should also try to extend your 1NC evidecee to take out the aff.
I thought your explanations on the kritik debate were also very good. You might want to talk a little bit more about the impacts to your kritik however, so that you can explain why it is more important than the affirmative's racism arguments.
I thought the 2NR was very good. Your evidence comparison was very good. Next time, I would try to spend a little more time focusing down on one specific argument. It was really good that you kicked the capitalism kritik, but focus even more. Spend time on each flow, explaining why it is that they mean you win the debate.
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 Mini DebateInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
1NC: Great job coming up with analytical arguments and mixing them in with cards! When you make your argument, don’t say “I said that…” – just launch straight into the argument.
2AC: Great job refuting each argument in order. I like how you specifically referred to your plan and what it said. You have a very solid 2AC – to make it great, you could work on incorporating multiple responses to their arguments when appropriate and referring to 1AC evidence.
2NC: Great job picking one argument to extend. I like how you not only said their evidence is old, but also talked about what has changed – this makes your argument even better! You could read an additional piece of evidence in the 2NC to support your argument.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: TopicalityInstructor/commentator: Baker
Comments:
-make sure to read the evidence that you are referencing - if it doesn't get read it doesn't count
-good explanation of reasonability
-make sure to answer the arguments the other team makes
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: TheoryInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2nc: your arguments are so good. Next step is to number the arguments so that they are treated as separate arguments. Especially awesome you made a counter interp.
redo of 2nc: awesome job organizing and hard numbering your arguments!
2ac on condo bad: - version 2 was perfect. remember to explain your arguments when you make it and that all theory arguments are about fairness and education
1ar: You need to give reasons for all of your arguments. Don't forget to extend the VI.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP mini debateInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2AC
- Good explanation of the permutation! Once you read the evidence to support the claims, it got even better.
- It seems like you have a good grasp of how to make the permutation as an argument, but you want MORE stuff going on than just that.
2NC
- Great job. Awesome line-by-line skills, several good answers to each aff argument, and a very nice, persuasive voice.
- Good on the #1. You incorporated my advice to Peter, and included the offensive argument.
- You've got the essence of the argument on the #2 (flexibility), but I'd like to hear you develop the argument more. Explain the process more. Also, I think you're reading the card here that was already read in the 1NC. No need to re-read it - just explain it.
- You probably read more cards than are really necessary. It's not a terrible problem, since you're still making good analytic arguments, but this may be a bit of a waste of time.
1AR
- Great job on the #1. You extend your argument, quickly answer their argument and then move on that. That's exactly what the 1AR needs to do
- The main thing to improve is to give a slightly more developed explanation of why a single bank is valuable. That's implied but not really clearly stated.
- Make it clear that you're talking about the perm when you get there. You say pretty much what you need to, but it helps to be specific.
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- remember to make arguments about why 50 state fiat is bad. It is an important tool against this CP! (partly my bad for not reminding you)
In the 1AR, remember to extend warrants to all your arguments. You could also be more responsive to block development.
Date of debate:6/30
Debating on:KInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-make sure to avoid over explaining the perm in the 2ac - often times taking a stance early on the permutation destroys the flexibility you need to deal with the blocks arguments later
-try to vary your analytic and evidence based arguments to make them easier to flow
-work on filling the time allotted
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: practice debate AInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
1NC
- Nice reading. Clear and a nice loud voice.
- Be clear when you're switching from one argument to the next. You didn't clearly identify the shift from the CP to the DA, or from the DA to the case, etc.
- You need to change your CP text for every specific debate. The stuff that's in the parentheses in the file means that you have to insert a specific explanation of what the counterplan does.
- Some of your case arguments are a bit repetitive.
- You want to separate the case arguments onto separate sheets of paper so they can respond directly to different advantages.
- It would also be helpful to diversify the arguments a little bit. Get some defense against global warming from the file about that, for example.
CX
- You're doing fine answering the questions, but try and look at the judge, not down at your paper.
1NR
- Great line by line. This is exactly the format you want to use. Extend, explain, and respond to their arguments.
- For your re-do, you should mostly focus on expanding the arguments. Why precisely won't people want to ride high speed rail? Why exactly doesn't it help the economy? Why do construction efforts hurt the environment? You extend these arguments, but it would be better if you can give the judge some details to think about.
- The new card on competitiveness is really useful, but usually you can't read this kind of thing new in the rebuttals. It would be much better to put this in the original 1NC. In this debate, where it WASN'T in the constructive, it's a good idea to include it. But it would be better earlier.
- You might want to follow that lead and ALSO read a card on defense for the global warming impact.
- I was a little confused by one argument. You said that HSR will cause people to drive more. I don't know why that would be true. So maybe cut that out, or explain more how it makes sense.
Re-do
- Try to compare what the airports will actually accomplish vs. what the new HSR will be able to do. For example, airports really help to get people long distances. That's a major component of HSR. It doesn't do much for local travel, of course, but that's a separate question.
- I would also extend the #3, about people not wanting to use cars.
- Try to focus a little bit more on how your argument will interact with the aff's at a terminal level. You do a lot of explanation of things that seem incidental (environmental effects in general, for example). The whole aff advantage is that CO2 emissions are bad. So you need to argue that the plan fails in regard to THAT. Develop the argument more.
- Would like to hear more about how HSR won't bolster the economy.
Second re-do
- Really great job. This is a massive improvement from the first version this afternoon! You have a ton more arguments and really do a lot of damage to the aff.
- I like that you're doing more to clearly extend authors, by name and by argument. That's fantastic. You also do a good job inserting the warrants from the cards (the Amtrak example, the general tendencies of people, etc.)
- Nice job on the car-based arguments. You make the basic argument clearly and do a good job explaining why the US is different.
- I still think you could do more to prove that the plan would increase CO2 emissions, but you're definitely engaging it a bunch more.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate BInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-When you give the order in the 1NC, all you need to say is the number of off case arguments and then the order of the case pages
-Don't need to read the war impact to the spending DA because the Aff has already made that argument in the 1AC
-Try not to take prep time for the 1NR, there is so much prep time built into the speech and you always want to be prepared by the time CX is up
-Need to summarize and do the 1NR with more passion and quickness. I want you to focus on being an engaging speaker and it will help you win some of these points.
-You should read more cards in the 1NR, especially on the DA. Explain why it outweighs the case and try to bolster the arguments of theirs that you think are the most threatening. On the DA, stick to their arguments in the order that they made them and try to attack their evidence and build up your own.
Date of debate:7/8
Debating on: Round 1Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell
Comments:
You did very well, especially since your partner is sick and you had to go alone. I know that you're uncomfortable being maverick, but dont worry. Your handeling everything perfectly. If you just calm down and focus, you will preform brilliantly during the rest of the tourney. I know that the speech was prewritten, however, I think if you kept a better flow then you would be bale to answer more of their case arguments. Also, the "They Say, We Say" model is best for trying to go line by line until you get better at it. The flows got a little messy.
Date of debate:7/9
Debating on:Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
awesome job! especially considering you were debating maverick.
you did well in 1NC cross-ex explaining your arguments clearly.
2NC - Good job on the case - going line-by-line and extending your evidence. If possible, you should also try to extend your 1NC evidecee to take out the aff.
I thought your explanations on the kritik debate were also very good. You might want to talk a little bit more about the impacts to your kritik however, so that you can explain why it is more important than the affirmative's racism arguments.
I thought the 2NR was very good. Your evidence comparison was very good. Next time, I would try to spend a little more time focusing down on one specific argument. It was really good that you kicked the capitalism kritik, but focus even more. Spend time on each flow, explaining why it is that they mean you win the debate.
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!