Debating on: T mini-debates Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2AC
- Good job incorporating the stuff we talked about. You've got a good explanation for the value of researching the military. But you go a bit too far down that road with a general defense of 'breadth.' That's not going to be super helpful.
- Don't need to say 'for your interpretation, I'll start with that.' Just launch into your own arguments. You can make it clear what they are in reference to while making them.
- Don't refer to the opponent as 'you.' Speak to the judge.
- Number arguments. Don't go down the 1NC and respond to each piece. Just construct your own arguments.
- Too wordy. Could be quite a bit more precise.
1AR
- You're acting like they don't have any evidence to define infrastructure. You do a good job of explaining YOUR interpretation, but it doesn't really help that much if they have a contrary piece of evidence. You can't treat this like an open-and-shut case.
- If this were a real 1AR, you would not have nearly as much time as you ended up using. You have to pick and choose what to respond to. You spent about 45 seconds defending the quality of dictionary.com - which is definitely overkill.
- Nice job identifying the other options available to the neg - generics which still apply against military affs. And nice job explaining that there is some educational value to debating military affs. But I'd like to hear a bit more about the fairness aspect of these type of affs.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: 2AC -- you need to highlight your evidence down a bit more. Obviously keep the warrants, but you have lots of extraneous words highlighted. In the 2AC, you generally don't want to summarize the cards after you've read them. Your explanation of the uniqueness card would be an awesome 1AR or 2AR explanation.
1AR -- Good use of historical example (FDR) in extending your arguments. Your speech needed more organization -- stick to the 2AC order. For example, read an additional uniqueness card ON the uniqueness debate, not later on.
2AR -- Good speech but same comment as above -- needs to stay organized and make arguments in the same thematic groupings.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini Debate 2AC Redo Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments:
-Skip the "states won't spend" argument in the 2AC
-Don't need to summarize evidence after you read it in the 2AC
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini Debate 2AC/1AR Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
You should eliminate the explanation of the evidence in the 2AC - it's not bad that you are able to explain it, but this type of analysis should come in the rebuttals. In addition, you should cut out "filler words" and phrases like: "First of all, I want to point out" and "I would like to note that" - these are unnecessary and hurt your efficiency. You also need to be making much more specific arguments about why the CP can't solve High Speed Rail, rather than making more general/abstract arguments about why states don't have money to fund transportation infrastructure. Specific arguments would be a lot more persuasive.
Date of debate:6/25
Debating on:Theory Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-good use of numbering
-try to cut more unecessary words and explanations - remember that theory is a time crunched part of debate
Date of debate:6/29
Debating on:CPs Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-keep in mind that theory debates question how debate is strectured which is distinct from substantive debates which answer the question "is the aff a good or bad idea?"
-make arguments with the impact in mind, it should all work up to one terminal impact statement
-try to minimize the use of jargon
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Case/States 1NR Redo Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: Goal: Working on line by line -Good job extending your evidence and explaining the warrants for that ev but you need to engage their evidence and warrants better -Reading a politics link on case is not very effective
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate B Instructor/commentator: Kernoff Comments:
CX: Don't ask the first CX question if it's not your CX - the question wasn't that helpful and Michael did just fine.
2AC: You should redo this speech this afternoon. Be clear when you transition from spending to the CP. Some of your answers were pretty mixed up between the two. Also, what about a permutation, theory, etc.? Put the case first! Good choice of cards to read. You did a good job of going line-by-line on some case arguments, but you should do this for ALL of them!
2AR: You did a great job talking about the internal links and impacts of your advantages. But you also need to respond to the 2NR. For instance, the 2NR on competitiveness said that you can't solve alternate causalities like a bad education system. Use your flow to make sure your arguments line up with what was in the 1AR - the two speeches are very different which means a lot of the best parts of the 2AR could be considered new.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice ROUND A Instructor/commentator: David Sterman Comments: Work on line by line, don't read repetitive cards, focus on tying together a coherent argument and avoiding extraneous arguments.
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.
You don’t need to summarize your cards after you read them in the 1NC. Don’t interrupt your partners speech so much, just let him go. You gotta get to the CP with more time in the 1NR so you can answer everything.
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: T mini-debatesInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2AC
- Good job incorporating the stuff we talked about. You've got a good explanation for the value of researching the military. But you go a bit too far down that road with a general defense of 'breadth.' That's not going to be super helpful.
- Don't need to say 'for your interpretation, I'll start with that.' Just launch into your own arguments. You can make it clear what they are in reference to while making them.
- Don't refer to the opponent as 'you.' Speak to the judge.
- Number arguments. Don't go down the 1NC and respond to each piece. Just construct your own arguments.
- Too wordy. Could be quite a bit more precise.
1AR
- You're acting like they don't have any evidence to define infrastructure. You do a good job of explaining YOUR interpretation, but it doesn't really help that much if they have a contrary piece of evidence. You can't treat this like an open-and-shut case.
- If this were a real 1AR, you would not have nearly as much time as you ended up using. You have to pick and choose what to respond to. You spent about 45 seconds defending the quality of dictionary.com - which is definitely overkill.
- Nice job identifying the other options available to the neg - generics which still apply against military affs. And nice job explaining that there is some educational value to debating military affs. But I'd like to hear a bit more about the fairness aspect of these type of affs.
Date of debate: 6/27
Debating on: Spending DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: 2AC -- you need to highlight your evidence down a bit more. Obviously keep the warrants, but you have lots of extraneous words highlighted. In the 2AC, you generally don't want to summarize the cards after you've read them. Your explanation of the uniqueness card would be an awesome 1AR or 2AR explanation.
1AR -- Good use of historical example (FDR) in extending your arguments. Your speech needed more organization -- stick to the 2AC order. For example, read an additional uniqueness card ON the uniqueness debate, not later on.
2AR -- Good speech but same comment as above -- needs to stay organized and make arguments in the same thematic groupings.
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini Debate 2AC RedoInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Skip the "states won't spend" argument in the 2AC
-Don't need to summarize evidence after you read it in the 2AC
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP Mini Debate 2AC/1ARInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
You should eliminate the explanation of the evidence in the 2AC - it's not bad that you are able to explain it, but this type of analysis should come in the rebuttals. In addition, you should cut out "filler words" and phrases like: "First of all, I want to point out" and "I would like to note that" - these are unnecessary and hurt your efficiency. You also need to be making much more specific arguments about why the CP can't solve High Speed Rail, rather than making more general/abstract arguments about why states don't have money to fund transportation infrastructure. Specific arguments would be a lot more persuasive.
Date of debate:6/25
Debating on:TheoryInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-good use of numbering
-try to cut more unecessary words and explanations - remember that theory is a time crunched part of debate
Date of debate:6/29
Debating on:CPsInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-keep in mind that theory debates question how debate is strectured which is distinct from substantive debates which answer the question "is the aff a good or bad idea?"
-make arguments with the impact in mind, it should all work up to one terminal impact statement
-try to minimize the use of jargon
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Case/States 1NR RedoInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
Goal: Working on line by line
-Good job extending your evidence and explaining the warrants for that ev but you need to engage their evidence and warrants better
-Reading a politics link on case is not very effective
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Debate BInstructor/commentator: Kernoff
Comments:
CX: Don't ask the first CX question if it's not your CX - the question wasn't that helpful and Michael did just fine.
2AC: You should redo this speech this afternoon. Be clear when you transition from spending to the CP. Some of your answers were pretty mixed up between the two. Also, what about a permutation, theory, etc.? Put the case first! Good choice of cards to read. You did a good job of going line-by-line on some case arguments, but you should do this for ALL of them!
2AR: You did a great job talking about the internal links and impacts of your advantages. But you also need to respond to the 2NR. For instance, the 2NR on competitiveness said that you can't solve alternate causalities like a bad education system. Use your flow to make sure your arguments line up with what was in the 1AR - the two speeches are very different which means a lot of the best parts of the 2AR could be considered new.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice ROUND AInstructor/commentator: David Sterman
Comments: Work on line by line, don't read repetitive cards, focus on tying together a coherent argument and avoiding extraneous arguments.
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.
You don’t need to summarize your cards after you read them in the 1NC. Don’t interrupt your partners speech so much, just let him go. You gotta get to the CP with more time in the 1NR so you can answer everything.
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!