Debating on: case mini debate Instructor/commentator: Nicole & Andrew Comments:
- arg before cite
- good at including quotes/terms from cards
- use more than a WW2 ex for econ decline = war
- remove words like "additionally," "which," and "crossapply" (if you've already said above)
- less signposting
debate 2
- work on the way you prepare your 2ac
- focus on removing repeat words by focusing on them during a redo
- good self-awareness that your 2ac was sloppy and a bit all over
- you improved some of your explanations as we asked - make sure you continue to focus on the right IL
- IL distinctions will help you clean up the flow more.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T Mini Debate (Neg) Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Good job framing your offense first and using lists to contextualize it in the overview -"Clash" is not a good thing in itself, you need to discuss the research practices or types of debates your interp is likely to produce -Begin with the impacts - your speech is systematic but lacks some of the framing and rhetorical power that I'd like to see -Heg staleness discussion went on a bit long
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: states/federalism Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
comments on video
1ar:
prety good. need more time on the impact calculus type arguments about protecting minority rights. you can also force some interactions between that and the general federalism impacts (that tend to be about protecting minority rights).
More pressure on the federalism no link arguments.
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: DA/Cp Mini Debate 2NR Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments:
-Very good spin and overview on both the DA and CP
-Spend a little more time on the theory debate to frame why the neg's job is so hard on this topic
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Practice Debate A Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
CX of Eric – don’t back down when questioning their internal links. Push him a bit harder to explain how HSR solves a broader transition to alternative energy. You should also try to utilize cross-x as a way to set-up some 1NC arguments – it seems like you’re just using the 3 minutes to ask factual questions.
2NC:
Make some discourse shapes reality arguments if you are going to center your overview on the threat con link. I think your overview is a bit too long at the top of the security flow.
Great reference to the cross-x of 1AC in response to Raghav’s question about the link – “You said in cross-x that in you solve economic competitiveness by forcing countries to liberalize their economies.”
2NR: You should have some sort of global overview at the start of your speech that connects your arguments. For example, one of the last things you say in your speech on the climate flow is that food shortages (on the ag debate) are linked to your trade arguments (I agree with this to some degree – if the US produces wheat, etc. it needs some way to export it globally). An effective overview would be one that says: “We have a short-term extinction scenario that turns the case by X. The link only goes one way [food shortage analysis and trade war analysis here].
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: REDO 2NR practice debate Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
Good overview at the top of the 2NR - you were efficient and included necessary impact calc. In addition, you spent a little longer explaining why the DA turns hegemony / why the aff can't solve heg. You could make your overview even better by putting some of the timeframe analysis you have on the Warming flow here. Example: We will win that we have a better internal link to solve economic collapse and that the DA turns the case. Even if we don't win that the DA turns warming, we'll outweigh on timeframe.
Good cross-application of arguments on the warming debate ("they can't solve warming it will take a long time") as a reason why your trade war impact should be evaluated first. In addition, you do a nice job of extending Jack's 1NR double-bind argument that their inherency evidence all indicates that competitiveness is low now, which means they can't weasel out of it in the 2AC to get out of the DA link. This was a concise extension and much clearer than before. You also had a better explanation of why R&D and tech developments now mean that short-term competitiveness won't tank.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Round A Instructor/commentator: Sterman Comments: Don't focus on how qs in cross-x that allow them to explain their cards better. Put your link wall on the perm in the K. More alternative explanation. Good impact calc. Be more assertive on Gibson Graham.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Round B Instructor/commentator: Gjerpen Comments:
I know it was a short-notice 1NC change, but since you know in advance, you should put some pre-empts in the 1AC (ex: util good, ethics don't come first, discourse doesn't shape reality, etc). It will make Jack's job easier in the 2AC because he can just extend the cards and will allow him to explain them in the context of the security K.
1AR - You should extend the "realism inevitable" arguments from the 2AC, not just realism good. This puts the neg in a tough spot to defend the world of their alternative. You should also put more pressure on the 2NR to explain what the impact and alternative to the k is. There's not really a clear articulation in the block, so you should exploit this in the 1AR. Good explanation of how the perm functions (do the plan but question its methodology) - seems like this answers the neg's only offensive argument on the K coming out of the block, that your methodology is flawed.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Round E Instructor/commentator: Nick Comments:
- Good 1AC cross-x on the tensions between inclusion/exclusion in the affirmative's mechanism, you might want to ask about how a judge should evaluate the debate (i.e. is there a reason to vote for the plan independent of its effects?, etc.)
- 2NC on the Cap K is pretty good overall, especially on the link debate with referencing 1AC evidence. I'm not sure you need an overview in this debate - you end up repeating most of the arguments you made there later on when discussing links and the question of the alternative. You could benefit from spending some more time on the impact debate - you're great on turns case, but pretty light on the magnitude question - you should point out that even if they solve disposability for a small segment of the population, that capitalism is all-encompassing, etc.
- Not a huge deal given the absence of the conditionality argument in the 2AC, but perceptually it's a little strange to go from the Cap K to the econ impact extension in just a few seconds. Just a thought.
- I'm not totally sure I agree with the 2NR decision. You could conceivably go for either the K or the DA, but I think given the 1AR time allocation issues and the concession of your Khalilzad impact you could probably win a decent risk of the disad and a sizable turns case arg and then spend the rest of your time on the util/biopower turn.
- 2NR is pretty good on the link and permutation debate, especially the mobility masking link. I think it would benefit you to spend more time explaining your mechanism argument a little more so I can be confident that the plan itself, and not just a few of its justifications, is unethical.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament rd. 2 Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
- You're good at proving that the aff doesn't completely fix all problems, but then you commit precisely the same foul when you go for your alternative. It's silly to describe the single act of the negative as somehow sufficient. Your description in the overview is better: that the debate ought to be about strategies for thinking about politics. Try to keep pushing your K in that direction. If you keep the debate at the level of who is more likely to kickstart meaningful movements, it just seems like the aff is going to end up ahead because they at least fix some real problems.
- Relatedly, you have a lot of links of omission. The plan doesn't solve education, it doesn't solve unemployment, etc. Ergo: it remains within the system of capitalism. These arguments DO matter. I firmly support using your K to bolster 'alt cause' arguments into offense. But you shouldn't frame this stuff as 'links.' You should win your actual links about how the plan generates capitalism, etc. And then use all this 'systemic capitalism perverts the plan action' stuff as IL offense, as a means to undermine the aff, etc.
2NR
- Good job on the case. Really nice extension of the solvency defense and the movements stuff. And you do a nice job explaining how to integrate this into the rest of the debate.
- You need to be a bit more efficient on the theory. Some wasted time there spinning your wheels.
- You're a bit top-heavy and repetitive on the K. Most of this stuff is fine enough, but the crux of the 2AR is going to focus on alt v. perm, so you really need to get there with more time. You end up just extending things, not really putting stuff together. Which covers your bases, but isn't really a full development.
- You need to extend the 'aff links to automobility' argument more explicitly. This is the essence of the whole argument. They think they have a link turn, but it's because they are focusing on the symptom, not the cause. They still associate movement itself with value, and that value is MEASURED via commodifed terms.
- I'm confused about this Zizek link argument. Are you saying that segregated communities are GOOD because they unify to resist capitalism? That doesn't seem true...
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: Nicole & Andrew
Comments:
- arg before cite
- good at including quotes/terms from cards
- use more than a WW2 ex for econ decline = war
- remove words like "additionally," "which," and "crossapply" (if you've already said above)
- less signposting
debate 2
- work on the way you prepare your 2ac
- focus on removing repeat words by focusing on them during a redo
- good self-awareness that your 2ac was sloppy and a bit all over
- you improved some of your explanations as we asked - make sure you continue to focus on the right IL
- IL distinctions will help you clean up the flow more.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: T Mini Debate (Neg)Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Good job framing your offense first and using lists to contextualize it in the overview
-"Clash" is not a good thing in itself, you need to discuss the research practices or types of debates your interp is likely to produce
-Begin with the impacts - your speech is systematic but lacks some of the framing and rhetorical power that I'd like to see
-Heg staleness discussion went on a bit long
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: states/federalismInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
comments on video
1ar:
prety good. need more time on the impact calculus type arguments about protecting minority rights. you can also force some interactions between that and the general federalism impacts (that tend to be about protecting minority rights).
More pressure on the federalism no link arguments.
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: DA/Cp Mini Debate 2NRInstructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Very good spin and overview on both the DA and CP
-Spend a little more time on the theory debate to frame why the neg's job is so hard on this topic
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: Practice Debate AInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
CX of Eric – don’t back down when questioning their internal links. Push him a bit harder to explain how HSR solves a broader transition to alternative energy. You should also try to utilize cross-x as a way to set-up some 1NC arguments – it seems like you’re just using the 3 minutes to ask factual questions.
2NC:
Make some discourse shapes reality arguments if you are going to center your overview on the threat con link. I think your overview is a bit too long at the top of the security flow.
Great reference to the cross-x of 1AC in response to Raghav’s question about the link – “You said in cross-x that in you solve economic competitiveness by forcing countries to liberalize their economies.”
2NR: You should have some sort of global overview at the start of your speech that connects your arguments. For example, one of the last things you say in your speech on the climate flow is that food shortages (on the ag debate) are linked to your trade arguments (I agree with this to some degree – if the US produces wheat, etc. it needs some way to export it globally). An effective overview would be one that says: “We have a short-term extinction scenario that turns the case by X. The link only goes one way [food shortage analysis and trade war analysis here].
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: REDO 2NR practice debateInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
Good overview at the top of the 2NR - you were efficient and included necessary impact calc. In addition, you spent a little longer explaining why the DA turns hegemony / why the aff can't solve heg. You could make your overview even better by putting some of the timeframe analysis you have on the Warming flow here. Example: We will win that we have a better internal link to solve economic collapse and that the DA turns the case. Even if we don't win that the DA turns warming, we'll outweigh on timeframe.
Good cross-application of arguments on the warming debate ("they can't solve warming it will take a long time") as a reason why your trade war impact should be evaluated first. In addition, you do a nice job of extending Jack's 1NR double-bind argument that their inherency evidence all indicates that competitiveness is low now, which means they can't weasel out of it in the 2AC to get out of the DA link. This was a concise extension and much clearer than before. You also had a better explanation of why R&D and tech developments now mean that short-term competitiveness won't tank.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Round AInstructor/commentator: Sterman
Comments: Don't focus on how qs in cross-x that allow them to explain their cards better. Put your link wall on the perm in the K. More alternative explanation. Good impact calc. Be more assertive on Gibson Graham.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice Round BInstructor/commentator: Gjerpen
Comments:
I know it was a short-notice 1NC change, but since you know in advance, you should put some pre-empts in the 1AC (ex: util good, ethics don't come first, discourse doesn't shape reality, etc). It will make Jack's job easier in the 2AC because he can just extend the cards and will allow him to explain them in the context of the security K.
1AR - You should extend the "realism inevitable" arguments from the 2AC, not just realism good. This puts the neg in a tough spot to defend the world of their alternative. You should also put more pressure on the 2NR to explain what the impact and alternative to the k is. There's not really a clear articulation in the block, so you should exploit this in the 1AR. Good explanation of how the perm functions (do the plan but question its methodology) - seems like this answers the neg's only offensive argument on the K coming out of the block, that your methodology is flawed.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Round EInstructor/commentator: Nick
Comments:
- Good 1AC cross-x on the tensions between inclusion/exclusion in the affirmative's mechanism, you might want to ask about how a judge should evaluate the debate (i.e. is there a reason to vote for the plan independent of its effects?, etc.)
- 2NC on the Cap K is pretty good overall, especially on the link debate with referencing 1AC evidence. I'm not sure you need an overview in this debate - you end up repeating most of the arguments you made there later on when discussing links and the question of the alternative. You could benefit from spending some more time on the impact debate - you're great on turns case, but pretty light on the magnitude question - you should point out that even if they solve disposability for a small segment of the population, that capitalism is all-encompassing, etc.
- Not a huge deal given the absence of the conditionality argument in the 2AC, but perceptually it's a little strange to go from the Cap K to the econ impact extension in just a few seconds. Just a thought.
- I'm not totally sure I agree with the 2NR decision. You could conceivably go for either the K or the DA, but I think given the 1AR time allocation issues and the concession of your Khalilzad impact you could probably win a decent risk of the disad and a sizable turns case arg and then spend the rest of your time on the util/biopower turn.
- 2NR is pretty good on the link and permutation debate, especially the mobility masking link. I think it would benefit you to spend more time explaining your mechanism argument a little more so I can be confident that the plan itself, and not just a few of its justifications, is unethical.
Date of debate: 7/9
Debating on: Tournament rd. 2Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
- You're good at proving that the aff doesn't completely fix all problems, but then you commit precisely the same foul when you go for your alternative. It's silly to describe the single act of the negative as somehow sufficient. Your description in the overview is better: that the debate ought to be about strategies for thinking about politics. Try to keep pushing your K in that direction. If you keep the debate at the level of who is more likely to kickstart meaningful movements, it just seems like the aff is going to end up ahead because they at least fix some real problems.
- Relatedly, you have a lot of links of omission. The plan doesn't solve education, it doesn't solve unemployment, etc. Ergo: it remains within the system of capitalism. These arguments DO matter. I firmly support using your K to bolster 'alt cause' arguments into offense. But you shouldn't frame this stuff as 'links.' You should win your actual links about how the plan generates capitalism, etc. And then use all this 'systemic capitalism perverts the plan action' stuff as IL offense, as a means to undermine the aff, etc.
2NR
- Good job on the case. Really nice extension of the solvency defense and the movements stuff. And you do a nice job explaining how to integrate this into the rest of the debate.
- You need to be a bit more efficient on the theory. Some wasted time there spinning your wheels.
- You're a bit top-heavy and repetitive on the K. Most of this stuff is fine enough, but the crux of the 2AR is going to focus on alt v. perm, so you really need to get there with more time. You end up just extending things, not really putting stuff together. Which covers your bases, but isn't really a full development.
- You need to extend the 'aff links to automobility' argument more explicitly. This is the essence of the whole argument. They think they have a link turn, but it's because they are focusing on the symptom, not the cause. They still associate movement itself with value, and that value is MEASURED via commodifed terms.
- I'm confused about this Zizek link argument. Are you saying that segregated communities are GOOD because they unify to resist capitalism? That doesn't seem true...
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!