Debating on: case mini-debate Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
Really great. You made a ton of smart arguments here. The issue to work on is tangents. You kind of meander a bit. It seems like you’re telling a story more than you’re really making arguments. There is certainly some room for that, but you probably want to be a bit more concise.
A related issue is that you make some arguments that are not really extensions of the argument you are on. It’s not that the argument itself is bad (it’s very good!), but you want to isolate parts of the debate and focus only on the subject being discussed. Make the other arguments in their appropriate places and it will keep the debate much more clean.
Try to ground your claims a bit more in evidence. In particular, you should reference the 1AC evidence if you can. But for some of the other claims where there are no cards one way or the other, you might just want to avoid bringing them up at all. The usefulness of arguments that assume specific facts is not very high if you don’t have evidence to back up those facts.
Date of debate: 6/22
Debating on: topicality mini debates Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen Comments:
Try to keep the ebb and flow of your speech going. You pause sometimes to decipher what you've written - write neater! This distracts a bit from the substance of your arguments. You do a good job of making smart arguments, but jump around too much. Stick to one area of the "flow" (ex: make all of your Interpretation arguments in one place, then move onto reasons why topicality is a voting issue, etc.) to stay more organized. The negative probably shouldn't say "we concede reasonability but we believe in a different type of reasonability" - explain this a bit more! It sounds like you're agreeing with the affirmative.
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:Disads Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-try to plan out exactly how you are going to start your speech to avoid the impulse to start again
-good use of evidence but you're relying on it a little too much - make sure to compare the arguments less than you compare the evidence
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Good 2AC! Remember to make a theory argument on the CP (50 state fiat bad). Also, don't start out the politics DA by saying you agree with part of their argument. Even if you aren't going to contest a certain component of the DA, it doesn't get you anywhere to agree with them, and it slightly undermines your ethos.
1AR -- Good work, but try not to stray too far from the original 2AC arguments. Your analysis of US-Russian relations is awesome, but could be a bit more concise so you could extend more arguments. On the CP, extend more arguments besides just the perm -- even if the block didn't answer it, it's worth keeping more arguments alive; make the 2NR harder.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: High-Speed Rail (Practice Debate 1) Instructor/commentator: Nick Comments:
- Be prepared! You should highlight your evidence and be familiar with all of the affirmative materials that the camp has produced. Before the debate begins, you should select the pieces of evidence to answer the arguments that the neg has disclosed to you and organize it into blocks. This will help limit the amount of prep time you take before your 2AC.
- Good “even if” comparison on the environmental impact case debate. You need to explicitly answer the neg evidence about oil being cheaper and the Senate’s opposition to funding. This might be a problem that stems from a lack of flowing the entire 1NC.
- Try to be more clear about when you’re answering the case and when you’re answering the disadvantage.
- Nice job explaining how the federal government can spend when it’s in debt – you should make analytic arguments like this in your 2AC.
- During cross-x, you should face the judge, not your opponent, when asking questions.
- I would devote more of your cross-x time to the spending disad. It’s the best offense the neg has against your case.
- Your 2AR on the case needs to answer all of the case arguments Kyle extends in the 2NR. You do a fine job on the arguments you do address, but you need to make sure you flow each distinct argument he makes and spend time responding to each one.
- The core issue for the spending debate is whether or not short-term spending and stimulus is better than incurring debt now. You need to make arguments that better account for the fact that it will take a while to build infrastructure but the costs are immediate.
- Work on referencing evidence and comparing the merits and problems with both sides on the spending debate to try and resolve this core issue.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice debate B Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
- You need to be prepared to ask CX questions when the 1AC is finished. You've had access to what the aff was going to say for almost 24 hours - you should be able to prepare a few questions.
2NC
- You have to plan before the debate which arguments you'll be talking about. It took you 10 minutes of prep time to decide what you were even going to talk about. I have no idea what you were doing with the last 24 hours, but you don't appear to have done any work to prepare for this debate.
- The 2NC needs to respond to affirmative arguments. You are only reading evidence. That is not debating. This is particularly frustrating given the amount of prep time it took you before this speech. You could have just randomly grabbed cards from a file to give this speech. Some of the evidence isn't even on subjects relevant to this debate! Like the perm evidence about federalism for example.
- You need to re-do this speech in your re-do this afternoon. For that speech, you are not allowed to read any new evidence. You just need to respond to the affirmative arguments.
- You need to flow your partner's speeches!!!!! And the opponent's speeches!!!!
2NR
- Face the judge when you're talking.
- I have no idea why you're talking about the states funding rural infrastructure. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with anything.
- You seem very frustrated, and understandably so. But given that you are not prepared in any way, or flowing the debate, it's not that surprising that you're not sure what to say. There are a lot of very simple things you can do to make this easier by preparing beforehand.
- Your speech includes some case arguments, a little bit on the critique, answers to the permutation on the CP, and that's it. There is no strategy here, or argument that you could win the debate on. You don't mention the DA at all - which is the only reason why the CP matters. And was also straight-turned...
Re-do
This is great. You respond to each aff argument with one or more good neg arguments. This demonstrates you totally get all of this when you take the time to figure it out.
- You don't really need to re-explain the link to politics. But it's the right argument to make on the perm. You do a good job explaining why the DA still links to the CP. That's fantastic.
- You do a good job on the #2 as well. It's great to point out that the FG is not unified either. You should also say that you fiat the states to work together, so it's not too complicated. You shouldn't say that the state governments will have the choice whether or not to act.
- For the state $$ problem, you have a nice argument that states can just acquire the necessary money through taxes. You might also want to say that the bank only needs a relatively small infusion and then will start paying for itself eventually.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate 2 Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell Comments:
1AC - It kind of sounds like this is your first time reading this affirmative, if it is your first time running it in round, then you should probably read it a few times the morning before the round so that way you are comfortable with the words in the cards. You should also use words like "Next" or "And" to indicate to the judge [me] and the other team when you are going to the next card, it was very difficult to flow your speech. The 1AC sets the tone of the rest of the round, so it is super important that it is clear. To flow is to know, I didn't see you flowing very often when the other team spoke, and you didn't flow your partners speech at all. Also, remember to be kind, ESPECIALLY to your partner. Debate is supposed to be fun, and were all here because we enjoy the activity... Yelling at your partner, cutting her off, playing games during others speechs, and other things that I mentioned to you at the end fo round are just plain rude dude. Just try to be courteous.
1AR - Your a smart guy, just be patient, and listen to your partner. Hear Alex out, she had some good advice that would have made your speech better, but your completely shut her down and ignored her. Teamwork is key in debate rounds.
CX - You should be asking questions of the other team... not yelling at Alex... simple.
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 you're 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: Practice Round 1 Instructor/commentator: Nick Comments:
- Just because it's "tag team" cx is not a justification to monopolize this time - you should defer to the 2N
- Try to emphasize important words and phrases in the 1NC (and other speeches)
- You need to flow
- You shouldn't need additional prep for the 1NR - you have all the prep from before the 2NC, as well as the 2NC itself, and the cx after the 2NC to prepare your 5-minute speech
- Good extension of the elections impact
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 3 Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: I voted Affirmative because the negative did not sufficiently develop any of their positions. On capitalism, I think the Aff wins a combination of the permutation and some of their capitalism good evidence. On elections, the 2NR did not respond to several of the 1AR's specific arguments which would have made it hard to vote on that an the CP. It is also just hard to conceptualize how to make my decision when there a multiple worlds in the 2NR.
You need to be preparing your 1NR and not interrupting your partners speech. You should not take prep for the 1NR, once she said you have to dp the perm on cap you had about 2 min to prep that.
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: Charles
Comments:
Really great. You made a ton of smart arguments here. The issue to work on is tangents. You kind of meander a bit. It seems like you’re telling a story more than you’re really making arguments. There is certainly some room for that, but you probably want to be a bit more concise.
A related issue is that you make some arguments that are not really extensions of the argument you are on. It’s not that the argument itself is bad (it’s very good!), but you want to isolate parts of the debate and focus only on the subject being discussed. Make the other arguments in their appropriate places and it will keep the debate much more clean.
Try to ground your claims a bit more in evidence. In particular, you should reference the 1AC evidence if you can. But for some of the other claims where there are no cards one way or the other, you might just want to avoid bringing them up at all. The usefulness of arguments that assume specific facts is not very high if you don’t have evidence to back up those facts.
Date of debate: 6/22
Debating on: topicality mini debatesInstructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen
Comments:
Try to keep the ebb and flow of your speech going. You pause sometimes to decipher what you've written - write neater! This distracts a bit from the substance of your arguments. You do a good job of making smart arguments, but jump around too much. Stick to one area of the "flow" (ex: make all of your Interpretation arguments in one place, then move onto reasons why topicality is a voting issue, etc.) to stay more organized. The negative probably shouldn't say "we concede reasonability but we believe in a different type of reasonability" - explain this a bit more! It sounds like you're agreeing with the affirmative.
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:DisadsInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-try to plan out exactly how you are going to start your speech to avoid the impulse to start again
-good use of evidence but you're relying on it a little too much - make sure to compare the arguments less than you compare the evidence
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good 2AC! Remember to make a theory argument on the CP (50 state fiat bad). Also, don't start out the politics DA by saying you agree with part of their argument. Even if you aren't going to contest a certain component of the DA, it doesn't get you anywhere to agree with them, and it slightly undermines your ethos.
1AR -- Good work, but try not to stray too far from the original 2AC arguments. Your analysis of US-Russian relations is awesome, but could be a bit more concise so you could extend more arguments. On the CP, extend more arguments besides just the perm -- even if the block didn't answer it, it's worth keeping more arguments alive; make the 2NR harder.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: High-Speed Rail (Practice Debate 1)Instructor/commentator: Nick
Comments:
- Be prepared! You should highlight your evidence and be familiar with all of the affirmative materials that the camp has produced. Before the debate begins, you should select the pieces of evidence to answer the arguments that the neg has disclosed to you and organize it into blocks. This will help limit the amount of prep time you take before your 2AC.
- Good “even if” comparison on the environmental impact case debate. You need to explicitly answer the neg evidence about oil being cheaper and the Senate’s opposition to funding. This might be a problem that stems from a lack of flowing the entire 1NC.
- Try to be more clear about when you’re answering the case and when you’re answering the disadvantage.
- Nice job explaining how the federal government can spend when it’s in debt – you should make analytic arguments like this in your 2AC.
- During cross-x, you should face the judge, not your opponent, when asking questions.
- I would devote more of your cross-x time to the spending disad. It’s the best offense the neg has against your case.
- Your 2AR on the case needs to answer all of the case arguments Kyle extends in the 2NR. You do a fine job on the arguments you do address, but you need to make sure you flow each distinct argument he makes and spend time responding to each one.
- The core issue for the spending debate is whether or not short-term spending and stimulus is better than incurring debt now. You need to make arguments that better account for the fact that it will take a while to build infrastructure but the costs are immediate.
- Work on referencing evidence and comparing the merits and problems with both sides on the spending debate to try and resolve this core issue.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice debate BInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
- You need to be prepared to ask CX questions when the 1AC is finished. You've had access to what the aff was going to say for almost 24 hours - you should be able to prepare a few questions.
2NC
- You have to plan before the debate which arguments you'll be talking about. It took you 10 minutes of prep time to decide what you were even going to talk about. I have no idea what you were doing with the last 24 hours, but you don't appear to have done any work to prepare for this debate.
- The 2NC needs to respond to affirmative arguments. You are only reading evidence. That is not debating. This is particularly frustrating given the amount of prep time it took you before this speech. You could have just randomly grabbed cards from a file to give this speech. Some of the evidence isn't even on subjects relevant to this debate! Like the perm evidence about federalism for example.
- You need to re-do this speech in your re-do this afternoon. For that speech, you are not allowed to read any new evidence. You just need to respond to the affirmative arguments.
- You need to flow your partner's speeches!!!!! And the opponent's speeches!!!!
2NR
- Face the judge when you're talking.
- I have no idea why you're talking about the states funding rural infrastructure. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with anything.
- You seem very frustrated, and understandably so. But given that you are not prepared in any way, or flowing the debate, it's not that surprising that you're not sure what to say. There are a lot of very simple things you can do to make this easier by preparing beforehand.
- Your speech includes some case arguments, a little bit on the critique, answers to the permutation on the CP, and that's it. There is no strategy here, or argument that you could win the debate on. You don't mention the DA at all - which is the only reason why the CP matters. And was also straight-turned...
Re-do
This is great. You respond to each aff argument with one or more good neg arguments. This demonstrates you totally get all of this when you take the time to figure it out.
- You don't really need to re-explain the link to politics. But it's the right argument to make on the perm. You do a good job explaining why the DA still links to the CP. That's fantastic.
- You do a good job on the #2 as well. It's great to point out that the FG is not unified either. You should also say that you fiat the states to work together, so it's not too complicated. You shouldn't say that the state governments will have the choice whether or not to act.
- For the state $$ problem, you have a nice argument that states can just acquire the necessary money through taxes. You might also want to say that the bank only needs a relatively small infusion and then will start paying for itself eventually.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate 2Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell
Comments:
1AC - It kind of sounds like this is your first time reading this affirmative, if it is your first time running it in round, then you should probably read it a few times the morning before the round so that way you are comfortable with the words in the cards. You should also use words like "Next" or "And" to indicate to the judge [me] and the other team when you are going to the next card, it was very difficult to flow your speech. The 1AC sets the tone of the rest of the round, so it is super important that it is clear.
To flow is to know, I didn't see you flowing very often when the other team spoke, and you didn't flow your partners speech at all. Also, remember to be kind, ESPECIALLY to your partner. Debate is supposed to be fun, and were all here because we enjoy the activity... Yelling at your partner, cutting her off, playing games during others speechs, and other things that I mentioned to you at the end fo round are just plain rude dude. Just try to be courteous.
1AR - Your a smart guy, just be patient, and listen to your partner. Hear Alex out, she had some good advice that would have made your speech better, but your completely shut her down and ignored her. Teamwork is key in debate rounds.
CX - You should be asking questions of the other team... not yelling at Alex... simple.
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 you're 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: Practice Round 1Instructor/commentator: Nick
Comments:
- Just because it's "tag team" cx is not a justification to monopolize this time - you should defer to the 2N
- Try to emphasize important words and phrases in the 1NC (and other speeches)
- You need to flow
- You shouldn't need additional prep for the 1NR - you have all the prep from before the 2NC, as well as the 2NC itself, and the cx after the 2NC to prepare your 5-minute speech
- Good extension of the elections impact
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament Round 3Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
I voted Affirmative because the negative did not sufficiently develop any of their positions. On capitalism, I think the Aff wins a combination of the permutation and some of their capitalism good evidence. On elections, the 2NR did not respond to several of the 1AR's specific arguments which would have made it hard to vote on that an the CP. It is also just hard to conceptualize how to make my decision when there a multiple worlds in the 2NR.
You need to be preparing your 1NR and not interrupting your partners speech. You should not take prep for the 1NR, once she said you have to dp the perm on cap you had about 2 min to prep that.
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!