Debating on: Theory Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2nc: you can't "cancel a rule"
Try to number your arguments instead of "soft numbering" ("first", "fourth") go for hard numbering 1 and 4.
2ac: good, but way to much repetition. You need to parse down your words a bit since this is the 2ac. save that extra flowery explanation for the 2ar.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini Debate Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Needs to work some on highlighting down evidence better -Don't need to repeat or summarize evidence in the 2AC -Can't make new arguments or read new evidence in the 2AR, summarize, don't reread older evidence -Focus more in impact in the 2AR and the reason why the Aff is more important than the DA -Work on making the speech more organized, beginning with the one description of how you win the debate and then going th
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:Disads Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-in order to maintain clarity, try to answer individual arguments in the order they have been presented by the other team
-good work explaining your argument at various points during your speech - try to condense it though and use it as the overview so you don't have to repeat yourself
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 1NC -- remember to read a link to the DA (card that the plan costs political capital).
2NC -- you need to answer all arguments made by the 2AC, and do so in order. The first argument on the CP was a permutation -- it's very important to answer that. On the DA, good job reading more impact cards, but you should also just make some arguments about why war is likely (in response to the 2AC argument that the US and Russia would never go to war).
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: practice debate Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
CX:
- Nice job asking some pointed questions in cross-ex. You generally want to ask a question once and then move on; don't belabor the point too much.
- Good spirit, but try to be a little more accommodating. You have to let your opponent answer questions when you ask them.
- Try to avoid 'are you aware' questions. Those aren't real questions.
2NC:
- Good selection of evidence on the CP. It would be helpful to follow the line by line a bit more, though. You read a card on the perm that really answers the #3 (about no state capacity to fund the CP).
- Your argument about uniformity just proves it's POSSIBLE for states to work together. But a) you didn't write your CP to actually do that and b) it doesn't really prove it can work in this case. You need to explain how it would actually happen.
- You do a really good job on the CP, but the main thing to improve would be to go beyond generic evidence. Discuss the specific aff plan.
- The only big problem on the CP is on the theory argument. You say it improves the debate, but don't really say how. You need a lot more here.
- On the DA, you're reading just a few too many cards without putting them specifically onto the line by line. You need to directly respond to each aff argument.
- The distinction you keep drawing between one big spending program and some smaller ones doesn't really make sense. I think you just need to distinguish the FG and the states. You are just wrong that states have access to a lot of funds. You need something better to say here. I really like how persuasive you sound while saying this stuff, but you need something more here.
- The card about the infrastructure bank is not useful. You need to read evidence that simply says that spending is bad for the economy.
2NR
- This speech is much too rhetorical. Your first minute or two is basically just asking questions and asserting the answers. The aff does have some evidence that the plan would work, would improve the economy, etc. You use New York as an example, but you have no evidence to support this premise. In fact, many many people do ride the trains in New York - and it produces a lot less CO2 than many other places.
- I really like how persuasively you speak, and you have a lot of presence. But debate is primarily about connecting together the evidence with persuasive argument. You've got the latter part down - try and integrate it more with the former. Usually I have to scream at people to use their brains and make smart arguments. You are one of the rare people who needs to trend back slightly in the other direction and give speeches that sound more like normal debate speeches.
- Once you get into the details of how people won't ride the trains, it won't go to the right places, and such, that was better. But it would still be better to ground this explicitly in the negative's evidence.
- You need to start with the DA. The priority is to win that the aff CAUSES a problem. Your defense against the case needs to supplement the DA. You need to develop the theory about WHY spending causes a recession. You kind of speak like it's blindingly obvious, but many smart people disagree.
- The speech ends up being fairly repetitive. You use a lot of the same points three or four times.
- There's no need to discuss the value of reading the states CP. They didn't extend that argument. If you're not going to go for it, you should explicitly kick it.
Re-do
- You've got a lot less energy in this speech compared to the one from the debate. I'd like to see a balance somewhere between the two. Lots more detail here, and that's good, but there was a ton of forcefulness to the last one, which is great, too. In general, trust your instincts and give smart, persuasive speeches. But also try to incorporate a bit more focus on the line-by-line.
- Try to open your speech with something a bit more clear. What precisely is the problem with the aff? You want the judge to understand this directly. Basically, start by saying something like: "The plan spends billions of dollars in a time of delicate recovery. Breaking our fiscal discipline crushes the recovery and plunges us back into recession, and the terminal result is war.'
- You're doing a good job of citing evidence now, but you don't really need to quote. That can occasionally be useful, but usually not as a general technique.
- When you cite evidence, you don't need to include the date. You can just say 'the Smith evidence' - you don't need to say 'Smith, 6-22-12.'
- The CP is a counterPLAN, not a counterPOINT. Not a big deal, but try to stick with the terminology.
Second re-do
- This is getting closer to the perfect balance. You've got some of the same passion and slightly snarky aggression, and a bit more of the detailed development of evidence, too. Two things that still needs some work: 1) organizing things on the line by line. You want to be a bit more clear when you're switching between arguments. 2) Bring back a bit more of the offense. This was primarily about the futility of the case, which is good, but you want more offense.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate B Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
1AC: Great! I had no problem understanding and flowing you. You have 30 seconds left that you could use to add an additional card. Great job answering CX questions - you are very confident. Remember, the federal government borrows money from investors.
CX: Calm down when asking questions! When everyone is yelling, it only makes the judge want to tune out.
1AR: You should redo this speech. You have a really good understanding of your case and explain it well. But you don't have much time in the 1AR and it's much more important to efficiently answer each negative argument from the block. I think some of the cards you are extending were not read in the 2AC - you can't talk about them unless you actually read them.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Round A Instructor/commentator: Sterman Comments: When extending arguments say argument then the author name/date. If in previous speech say extend not reference. Work on line by line.
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.
I don't think you need to spend the entire 2NC on the one case adv, you didnt use all your time and got a little repetitive. In the 2NR, you shouldn't have gone for the CP after the block conceded the theory argument.
Date of debate:
Debating on: Instructor/commentator: Comments:
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: 6/23
Debating on: TheoryInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2nc: you can't "cancel a rule"
Try to number your arguments instead of "soft numbering" ("first", "fourth") go for hard numbering 1 and 4.
2ac: good, but way to much repetition. You need to parse down your words a bit since this is the 2ac. save that extra flowery explanation for the 2ar.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini DebateInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Needs to work some on highlighting down evidence better
-Don't need to repeat or summarize evidence in the 2AC
-Can't make new arguments or read new evidence in the 2AR, summarize, don't reread older evidence
-Focus more in impact in the 2AR and the reason why the Aff is more important than the DA
-Work on making the speech more organized, beginning with the one description of how you win the debate and then going th
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:DisadsInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-in order to maintain clarity, try to answer individual arguments in the order they have been presented by the other team
-good work explaining your argument at various points during your speech - try to condense it though and use it as the overview so you don't have to repeat yourself
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 1NC -- remember to read a link to the DA (card that the plan costs political capital).
2NC -- you need to answer all arguments made by the 2AC, and do so in order. The first argument on the CP was a permutation -- it's very important to answer that. On the DA, good job reading more impact cards, but you should also just make some arguments about why war is likely (in response to the 2AC argument that the US and Russia would never go to war).
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: practice debateInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
CX:
- Nice job asking some pointed questions in cross-ex. You generally want to ask a question once and then move on; don't belabor the point too much.
- Good spirit, but try to be a little more accommodating. You have to let your opponent answer questions when you ask them.
- Try to avoid 'are you aware' questions. Those aren't real questions.
2NC:
- Good selection of evidence on the CP. It would be helpful to follow the line by line a bit more, though. You read a card on the perm that really answers the #3 (about no state capacity to fund the CP).
- Your argument about uniformity just proves it's POSSIBLE for states to work together. But a) you didn't write your CP to actually do that and b) it doesn't really prove it can work in this case. You need to explain how it would actually happen.
- You do a really good job on the CP, but the main thing to improve would be to go beyond generic evidence. Discuss the specific aff plan.
- The only big problem on the CP is on the theory argument. You say it improves the debate, but don't really say how. You need a lot more here.
- On the DA, you're reading just a few too many cards without putting them specifically onto the line by line. You need to directly respond to each aff argument.
- The distinction you keep drawing between one big spending program and some smaller ones doesn't really make sense. I think you just need to distinguish the FG and the states. You are just wrong that states have access to a lot of funds. You need something better to say here. I really like how persuasive you sound while saying this stuff, but you need something more here.
- The card about the infrastructure bank is not useful. You need to read evidence that simply says that spending is bad for the economy.
2NR
- This speech is much too rhetorical. Your first minute or two is basically just asking questions and asserting the answers. The aff does have some evidence that the plan would work, would improve the economy, etc. You use New York as an example, but you have no evidence to support this premise. In fact, many many people do ride the trains in New York - and it produces a lot less CO2 than many other places.
- I really like how persuasively you speak, and you have a lot of presence. But debate is primarily about connecting together the evidence with persuasive argument. You've got the latter part down - try and integrate it more with the former. Usually I have to scream at people to use their brains and make smart arguments. You are one of the rare people who needs to trend back slightly in the other direction and give speeches that sound more like normal debate speeches.
- Once you get into the details of how people won't ride the trains, it won't go to the right places, and such, that was better. But it would still be better to ground this explicitly in the negative's evidence.
- You need to start with the DA. The priority is to win that the aff CAUSES a problem. Your defense against the case needs to supplement the DA. You need to develop the theory about WHY spending causes a recession. You kind of speak like it's blindingly obvious, but many smart people disagree.
- The speech ends up being fairly repetitive. You use a lot of the same points three or four times.
- There's no need to discuss the value of reading the states CP. They didn't extend that argument. If you're not going to go for it, you should explicitly kick it.
Re-do
- You've got a lot less energy in this speech compared to the one from the debate. I'd like to see a balance somewhere between the two. Lots more detail here, and that's good, but there was a ton of forcefulness to the last one, which is great, too. In general, trust your instincts and give smart, persuasive speeches. But also try to incorporate a bit more focus on the line-by-line.
- Try to open your speech with something a bit more clear. What precisely is the problem with the aff? You want the judge to understand this directly. Basically, start by saying something like: "The plan spends billions of dollars in a time of delicate recovery. Breaking our fiscal discipline crushes the recovery and plunges us back into recession, and the terminal result is war.'
- You're doing a good job of citing evidence now, but you don't really need to quote. That can occasionally be useful, but usually not as a general technique.
- When you cite evidence, you don't need to include the date. You can just say 'the Smith evidence' - you don't need to say 'Smith, 6-22-12.'
- The CP is a counterPLAN, not a counterPOINT. Not a big deal, but try to stick with the terminology.
Second re-do
- This is getting closer to the perfect balance. You've got some of the same passion and slightly snarky aggression, and a bit more of the detailed development of evidence, too. Two things that still needs some work: 1) organizing things on the line by line. You want to be a bit more clear when you're switching between arguments. 2) Bring back a bit more of the offense. This was primarily about the futility of the case, which is good, but you want more offense.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate BInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
1AC: Great! I had no problem understanding and flowing you. You have 30 seconds left that you could use to add an additional card. Great job answering CX questions - you are very confident. Remember, the federal government borrows money from investors.
CX: Calm down when asking questions! When everyone is yelling, it only makes the judge want to tune out.
1AR: You should redo this speech. You have a really good understanding of your case and explain it well. But you don't have much time in the 1AR and it's much more important to efficiently answer each negative argument from the block. I think some of the cards you are extending were not read in the 2AC - you can't talk about them unless you actually read them.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Round AInstructor/commentator: Sterman
Comments: When extending arguments say argument then the author name/date. If in previous speech say extend not reference. Work on line by line.
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.
I don't think you need to spend the entire 2NC on the one case adv, you didnt use all your time and got a little repetitive. In the 2NR, you shouldn't have gone for the CP after the block conceded the theory argument.
Date of debate:
Debating on:Instructor/commentator:
Comments:
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!