Debating on: Case Clash Instructor/commentator: Crowe Comments:
Very good, but slightly disorganized – answer their arguments in order and reference their arguments when you make them.
When you referenced arguments, you started with “even if” and then stated their argument, but you should frontload their argument quickly, unless you’re extending an affirmative argument that wasn’t responded to by the negative or might apply elsewhere.
You seem in your element when you’re making a common sense historical argument. Try to transfer that to some other arguments that you're less comfortable with as the workshop continues!
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T mini debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2ac! Try not to subpoint in the 2ac on T - it can be confusing for flowing. Your speech was otherwise very organized - good improvement there. Try to make sure all of your arguments have useful argument labels (or tags for the arguments). Good clarity and speed!
1ar: really good 1ar! You did a good job comparing definitions and impacting one standard as more important than the other. You pause a bit between arguments - but that's probably just the nature of the mini debate. Few things to focus on
1. specifically reference the 2ac arguments.
2. Comparisons points - try to come up with a few more reasons to prefer your definition over the other rather than just its most accepted by the public. Things like the kinds of affs, the limits, the type of Das that would be allowed, etc - all of those are also useful points of comparisons to have.
3. military key - you need to be more persuasive about the military is a core part of discussion for this topic.
4. we meet - you are good at extending the we meet evidence, but need to focus a bit more on the analytical arguments necessary to spin your plan as part of a public asset that involves what the text of her definition says.
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: 50 state fiat Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
1AR
- Good job! You've got a ton of arguments in here and many of them are nicely efficient. In general, the content is good.
- It does end up being a bit messy to flow, though. You're half-signposting and half-not. That ends up being confusing. I would probably recommend grouping things a lot more. For example, you use uniformity a few places, but don't get around to explaining it until the end. I think it makes more sense to make that a framing argument at the top and then point out how it applies.
- Summary: you have a rambly speech with the right content. The next step is to organize it a bit more so that it's easier for the judge to follow.
2NC
- Great. Very efficient, short, to the point. There are a few places where you probably would want to elaborate more, but if you had a time-pressed speech, this would certainly meet the minimum threshold.
- In particular, it would be really helpful to spend 5-10 more seconds explaining why it's GOOD to prevent the aff from reading affs with no "FG key" warrant. Effectively, to limit the topic to a manageable and debatable size.
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Security K Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- good combination of cards and analytics! Your framework argument could be developed a bit more. You never know when the block is going to spend a bunch of time arguing that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the case, so it's important to frontload your responses.
1AR -- good start, but you could do a lot more. Spend more time on the permutation and explain how it would function. Use your 'no link' argument to bolster it. Also, structure your speech in terms of extending specific 2AC arguments rather than mostly reacting to the block. You could extend 1-2 more 2AC arguments, as well.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Practice Debate A - HSR Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
1AC: Great job being clear and understandable, especially on the tags! Work on speaking at a smooth and even pace. If you stumble over something, do your best to spit it out and move on! Good job adding some extensions to use your extra time. Add these where they fit logically, not all at the end!
1AR: You should redo this speech tonight. You need to be using your own flows to give the 1AR! You did just fine on your own - have the confidence to do this every time! The argument is much more important than the name of the card - it doesn't really matter if you forget what the card was as long as you can explain the argument.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate B Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
Make sure to extend enough arguments in the 1AR to help Alice give an effective 2AR. You also need to, in collaboration with Alice, start to think about which arguments are going to be your key aff arguments. Focus on these in the 1AR and start to set-up more comprehensive analysis.
REDO 1AR: You sound more confident in this redo. You also are more efficient on the advantage flows. On politics, you should explain how your link turns prove the DA is a net-benefit to the perm, not to the States CP.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate C Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
Good 2NC – you’re very clear and fast and you were very good about going line-by-line in your speeches, so it was clear what arguments you were arguing.
Be careful to take a close flow of the 2AC – you are responding to some of their Jackson-Vanick answers on the Oil DA. While all of these cards deal with Russia, you should be careful to answer the arguments the 2AC did make on the Oil DA.
Great 2NR – the impact calculus and the turns case analysis you did at the top was very effective. You explained well why the arguments made on the capitalism kritik were all reasons why they couldn’t solve economy, terrorism advantages etc.
I also liked that you made a couple of case arguments in addition to your kritik, especially the arguments that the affirmative mishandled.
I would be sure on the kritik in the 2NR to answer the arguments that the 1AR is making, you are explaining your arguments very well, but next time, try to go line-by-line, answering the 1AR arguments, just like you did the 2AC arguments.
Date of debate:7/7
Debating on:Practice Debate D Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
1AC
-don't speak into your laptop - it blocks your voice
-try to maintain a constant tempo no matter the rate of speech; good job varrying your voice for tags though
-try to fill all of the time allotted
CX of the 1AC
-ask fewer general clarification questions, focus on specific arguments to design questions around
-try to plan out your questions to prevent having to pause between questions
1NC
-more often then not, you shouldnt have to take prep before your 1NC
-try to face the person judging the debate when you speak
-make sure to label your various off case arguments before you read any of them
-when you stumble in your speech, try to maintain your rate of speech rather than pausing and resetting
CX of the 1NC
-try avoid beiung lead on a hunt for evidence around the room during the cross-x
2AC
-include a theory argument about the status of the cp and the k
-open your mouth wider to gain clarity; youre mumbling a bit while reading cards
-don't forget to perm the k
CX of the 2AC
-try to keep your cross-x focused on arguments in the debate rather than concepts that just relate to it
-ask fewer open ended questions that allow the other team to just talk
2NC
-take fewer arguments in the 2NC
-always try to have a timer with you during your speech
-you've got a case of the "uhs" and "ums" - try to eliminate it from your speeches
-try to avoid conversing with the other team during your speech
CX of the 2NC
-even if it takes some spin, always try to have an answer to cross-x questions
1NR
-don't forget to give an order for your speech
-try to pick an argument to focus on in your speech and then follow the line by line to make arguments that clash with the other teams arguments
-remember, you arent talking to the other team, but the judge
1AR
-when debates get muddled like this, part of the 1AR's job is to clean things up
-good use of strategic concessions of the other sides arguments in order to support your arguments
-include more impact calclulus relating the aff advantages to the neg impacts
2NR
-don't forget to discuss the alternative in the 2NR - why it solves your link arguments and why it solves or resolves the affs advantages
-good use of the link arguments but make sure that the impact to each of them is clearly weighed against hte aff
-if youre going for the criticism alone, you need to kick out of the states CP and the elections DA
2AR
-use more of your prep time either before the 2AC and always max it out before the 2AR
-focus more on the cap k that the 2NR spends the most time on
-if you truly believe you have extra time, spend it on weighing the case
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 2 Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: I voted Aff because the Perm solves some risk of the impacts and I don't think that the alt is likely to be effective at combatting capitalism.
Need to stick to the line by line better in the 2NC, signpost and do section of the debate in each place. Don't just read more cards. You really need to explain the alt solvency in the 2NR, it might have tipped the scales in this debate. As well as explaining with greater specificity why the perm would not solve and what the link is.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on:Round 4 Instructor/commentator: Yamamura Comments:
1A
- Some of the cards you have are a little bit redundant. For example, you have two cards that make the claim that HSR solves CO2, and two cards that HSR solves the economy. You might want to take these cards out and replace them with other cards that will help you later on in the debate.
- Be sure in the 1AR to not group the entirety of the case debate. Although you're time pressured, you still need to make sure you answer all of the block arguments on each flow.
- If you're not ready for the 1AR, take a little bit more prep time. You had almost 4 for the 2ar. Whlie having a little less is not fantastic, it's defintely worth the time to get your thoughts in order.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on:Round 3 Instructor/commentator: Baker Comments:
-even if an argument is conceeded, you still have to extend it with even a basic explanation
-try not to pause so long between arguments - it may be a problem with your flow
-use all of the time allotted
-make sure to explicitly kick out of arguments you arent going for in the 2nr
-spend the majority of your time on your offense - the disad
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 ClashInstructor/commentator: Crowe
Comments:
Very good, but slightly disorganized – answer their arguments in order and reference their arguments when you make them.
When you referenced arguments, you started with “even if” and then stated their argument, but you should frontload their argument quickly, unless you’re extending an affirmative argument that wasn’t responded to by the negative or might apply elsewhere.
You seem in your element when you’re making a common sense historical argument. Try to transfer that to some other arguments that you're less comfortable with as the workshop continues!
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T mini debateInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2ac! Try not to subpoint in the 2ac on T - it can be confusing for flowing. Your speech was otherwise very organized - good improvement there. Try to make sure all of your arguments have useful argument labels (or tags for the arguments). Good clarity and speed!
1ar: really good 1ar! You did a good job comparing definitions and impacting one standard as more important than the other. You pause a bit between arguments - but that's probably just the nature of the mini debate. Few things to focus on
1. specifically reference the 2ac arguments.
2. Comparisons points - try to come up with a few more reasons to prefer your definition over the other rather than just its most accepted by the public. Things like the kinds of affs, the limits, the type of Das that would be allowed, etc - all of those are also useful points of comparisons to have.
3. military key - you need to be more persuasive about the military is a core part of discussion for this topic.
4. we meet - you are good at extending the we meet evidence, but need to focus a bit more on the analytical arguments necessary to spin your plan as part of a public asset that involves what the text of her definition says.
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: 50 state fiatInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
1AR
- Good job! You've got a ton of arguments in here and many of them are nicely efficient. In general, the content is good.
- It does end up being a bit messy to flow, though. You're half-signposting and half-not. That ends up being confusing. I would probably recommend grouping things a lot more. For example, you use uniformity a few places, but don't get around to explaining it until the end. I think it makes more sense to make that a framing argument at the top and then point out how it applies.
- Summary: you have a rambly speech with the right content. The next step is to organize it a bit more so that it's easier for the judge to follow.
2NC
- Great. Very efficient, short, to the point. There are a few places where you probably would want to elaborate more, but if you had a time-pressed speech, this would certainly meet the minimum threshold.
- In particular, it would be really helpful to spend 5-10 more seconds explaining why it's GOOD to prevent the aff from reading affs with no "FG key" warrant. Effectively, to limit the topic to a manageable and debatable size.
Date of debate: 6/30
Debating on: Security KInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- good combination of cards and analytics! Your framework argument could be developed a bit more. You never know when the block is going to spend a bunch of time arguing that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the case, so it's important to frontload your responses.
1AR -- good start, but you could do a lot more. Spend more time on the permutation and explain how it would function. Use your 'no link' argument to bolster it. Also, structure your speech in terms of extending specific 2AC arguments rather than mostly reacting to the block. You could extend 1-2 more 2AC arguments, as well.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Practice Debate A - HSRInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
1AC: Great job being clear and understandable, especially on the tags! Work on speaking at a smooth and even pace. If you stumble over something, do your best to spit it out and move on! Good job adding some extensions to use your extra time. Add these where they fit logically, not all at the end!
1AR: You should redo this speech tonight. You need to be using your own flows to give the 1AR! You did just fine on your own - have the confidence to do this every time! The argument is much more important than the name of the card - it doesn't really matter if you forget what the card was as long as you can explain the argument.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate BInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
Make sure to extend enough arguments in the 1AR to help Alice give an effective 2AR. You also need to, in collaboration with Alice, start to think about which arguments are going to be your key aff arguments. Focus on these in the 1AR and start to set-up more comprehensive analysis.
REDO 1AR: You sound more confident in this redo. You also are more efficient on the advantage flows. On politics, you should explain how your link turns prove the DA is a net-benefit to the perm, not to the States CP.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate CInstructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
Good 2NC – you’re very clear and fast and you were very good about going line-by-line in your speeches, so it was clear what arguments you were arguing.
Be careful to take a close flow of the 2AC – you are responding to some of their Jackson-Vanick answers on the Oil DA. While all of these cards deal with Russia, you should be careful to answer the arguments the 2AC did make on the Oil DA.
Great 2NR – the impact calculus and the turns case analysis you did at the top was very effective. You explained well why the arguments made on the capitalism kritik were all reasons why they couldn’t solve economy, terrorism advantages etc.
I also liked that you made a couple of case arguments in addition to your kritik, especially the arguments that the affirmative mishandled.
I would be sure on the kritik in the 2NR to answer the arguments that the 1AR is making, you are explaining your arguments very well, but next time, try to go line-by-line, answering the 1AR arguments, just like you did the 2AC arguments.
Date of debate:7/7
Debating on:Practice Debate DInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
1AC
-don't speak into your laptop - it blocks your voice
-try to maintain a constant tempo no matter the rate of speech; good job varrying your voice for tags though
-try to fill all of the time allotted
CX of the 1AC
-ask fewer general clarification questions, focus on specific arguments to design questions around
-try to plan out your questions to prevent having to pause between questions
1NC
-more often then not, you shouldnt have to take prep before your 1NC
-try to face the person judging the debate when you speak
-make sure to label your various off case arguments before you read any of them
-when you stumble in your speech, try to maintain your rate of speech rather than pausing and resetting
CX of the 1NC
-try avoid beiung lead on a hunt for evidence around the room during the cross-x
2AC
-include a theory argument about the status of the cp and the k
-open your mouth wider to gain clarity; youre mumbling a bit while reading cards
-don't forget to perm the k
CX of the 2AC
-try to keep your cross-x focused on arguments in the debate rather than concepts that just relate to it
-ask fewer open ended questions that allow the other team to just talk
2NC
-take fewer arguments in the 2NC
-always try to have a timer with you during your speech
-you've got a case of the "uhs" and "ums" - try to eliminate it from your speeches
-try to avoid conversing with the other team during your speech
CX of the 2NC
-even if it takes some spin, always try to have an answer to cross-x questions
1NR
-don't forget to give an order for your speech
-try to pick an argument to focus on in your speech and then follow the line by line to make arguments that clash with the other teams arguments
-remember, you arent talking to the other team, but the judge
1AR
-when debates get muddled like this, part of the 1AR's job is to clean things up
-good use of strategic concessions of the other sides arguments in order to support your arguments
-include more impact calclulus relating the aff advantages to the neg impacts
2NR
-don't forget to discuss the alternative in the 2NR - why it solves your link arguments and why it solves or resolves the affs advantages
-good use of the link arguments but make sure that the impact to each of them is clearly weighed against hte aff
-if youre going for the criticism alone, you need to kick out of the states CP and the elections DA
2AR
-use more of your prep time either before the 2AC and always max it out before the 2AR
-focus more on the cap k that the 2NR spends the most time on
-if you truly believe you have extra time, spend it on weighing the case
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 2Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
I voted Aff because the Perm solves some risk of the impacts and I don't think that the alt is likely to be effective at combatting capitalism.
Need to stick to the line by line better in the 2NC, signpost and do section of the debate in each place. Don't just read more cards.
You really need to explain the alt solvency in the 2NR, it might have tipped the scales in this debate. As well as explaining with greater specificity why the perm would not solve and what the link is.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on:Round 4Instructor/commentator: Yamamura
Comments:
1A
- Some of the cards you have are a little bit redundant. For example, you have two cards that make the claim that HSR solves CO2, and two cards that HSR solves the economy. You might want to take these cards out and replace them with other cards that will help you later on in the debate.
- Be sure in the 1AR to not group the entirety of the case debate. Although you're time pressured, you still need to make sure you answer all of the block arguments on each flow.
- If you're not ready for the 1AR, take a little bit more prep time. You had almost 4 for the 2ar. Whlie having a little less is not fantastic, it's defintely worth the time to get your thoughts in order.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on:Round 3Instructor/commentator: Baker
Comments:
-even if an argument is conceeded, you still have to extend it with even a basic explanation
-try not to pause so long between arguments - it may be a problem with your flow
-use all of the time allotted
-make sure to explicitly kick out of arguments you arent going for in the 2nr
-spend the majority of your time on your offense - the disad
EXAMPLE
Date of debate: June 23Debating on: Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Awesome job! Best 1AC ever!