Comments: Great first speech! Work on flowing so you can keep track of arguments. Clash with the 1NC as much as possible.
Date of debate: 6/22
Debating on: topicality mini debates Instructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen Comments:
You need to add some more arguments to your speech - it's too short! Try to explain the "why" or "because" behind some of your claims that you make (for instance, why is the military aff "improbable" or "always going to win"?). Including a succinct explanation will also help make your speech longer. Try to stay a little more organized too - go top to bottom.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: Theory Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
2ac on no neg fiat was awesome.
great job of doing line by line!
2nc on cond:
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP mini debate Instructor/commentator: Charles Comments:
2AC
- You've fallen into a bit of a trap on the first card you read. It says states won't invest. But the problem is that the CP fiats that investment. This is a bit confusing, so it's worth figuring out why this card doesn't help that much.
- The next card is far more useful. Makes a claim that states will be UNABLE to solve the problem, even if they try.
- I would like to hear slightly more direct discussion of what the affirmative does. You've picked some useful cards, and that's sufficient, but a good 2AC should speak about the aff as much as possible.
2NC
- Same comment as with Peter. It's good that you respond to their #1 with a strong offensive argument against federal action, but you also need to prove that states CAN solve.
- You're picking good cards to read here, but it's veering a bit too much into the type of speech that ONLY reads evidence. You want to give the judge your own arguments, not just what the authors say. Only the flexibility argument, you do a nice job of this. More of that!
1AR
- To open, you want to extend your own argument. You are primarily attempting to explain why federal spending is good, which is important, but your primary goal should be proving that the states DON'T work.
- Pretty good job on uniformity. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'connected networks' and 'synergizing' though.
- For the perm, would like to hear a tiny bit more.
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:Disads Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-make sure to set up safety nets and other options for your arguments that dont assume you win everything so you have options in the final speeches of the debate
-good use of the other sides arguments - make sure to start with your argument though and then explain how theirs doesnt respond
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DA Instructor/commentator: Mikaela Comments: Be sure to differentiate between the CP and the DA and be clear when you are moving from one to the other. (Also stay organized so that you make all the arguments on the appropriate flow.) In the 2AC, you don't need to say "They bring up this CP which has the states act..." Presumably the judge will understand that from the 1NC.
In the 2AC on politics, you should diversify your arguments more -- rather than just 2 cards that say Magnitsky won't undermine relations, attack different levels of the DA like the uniqueness, link, and terminal impact.
In the 1AR, focus more on extending/explaining/developing the 2AC argument than on reading new evidence.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: High Speed Rail (Practice Debate 1) Instructor/commentator: Nick Comments:
- Before your speech you should tell the judge the order you’ll be introducing new arguments and answering the case to help them flow your arguments more easily.
- There’s no need to summarize the evidence you’ve just read – this is the reason you read the tag before the card itself.
- In terms of strategy, what’s the utility of reading evidence on the case that the Senate opposes funding? As part of a politics disad, this is good link evidence, but if just read alone it’s not as useful because of the affirmative’s use of fiat.
- Fantastic job in cross-x on the question of construction. Also very good on pushing why people would use it and how much of the population would.
- You shouldn’t need prep time for the 1NR – use the time when your partner is speaking to prepare your speech.
- Great job on the spending debate – you’ve correctly identified the crux of the issue is whether spending now hurts the economy more than the potential long-term benefits of infrastructure. Good impact extension, but it could probably be shorter. You should also try to explain how economic decline would affect solutions to climate change, the other aff advantage.
- Try to use all your time – you should be reading additional evidence if possible.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: practice debate B Instructor/commentator: Nicole Comments:
Your 2nc is very good about answering every argument as you go. Great job! Your answers to 50 state fiat were a little light (try to make 1 or 2 more reasons why it is good), but otherwise that was good.
You do a good job explaining why it is similar to Japan and wy it would be bad if its run federally.
2nr:
use all of your prep. No point in leaving a minute left
You do a good job of going through all of their arguments, but need to reference some evidence and make sure you are comparing arguments.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice B Instructor/commentator: Sterman Comments: Work on line by line. Read terminal impacts and do impact calculus.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate D (2N) Instructor/commentator: Quigley Comments: -Never take prep for CX, especially of the 1AC -Make sure not to reread cards from the 1NC -You need to go systematically on the line by line, don't just read new evidence but also engage with their evidence. So tell me which 2AC answer your on, explain your argument, attack their evidence and only then read new evidence if you need to. -Better job making analytic arguments on the CP debate but I still want you to be more systematic -Always try to use all your speech time
-I don't think this "people wont use it" argument is very persuasive. I'd focus on can't solve warming and defense to competitiveness. -Need to kick the CP at the top of the 2NR, since you've conceded the permutation. Then go to the DA and win that, explain why you have implicitly answered most of the things they said you'd dropped (example of why you need to go line by line in the 2NC), and win that. Only then should you move on to the case. -Be systematic and try to answer each argument that the 1AR extended. But remember you only need one or two args on each case page, so pick your best ones. -Use all your time!
Date of Debate: 7/8
Debating on: Round 1 Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell Comments: FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [and do it on paper!] if you dont have any of the other teams arguments written down, then how can you expect yourself to answer them? You can not both debate paperlessly off your computer and attempt to flow on your computer. There were many strategic issues coming out of the 1NC that we talked about after round. But, just be wary... and be sure to talk to your partner so you guys come up with the strat together. and there was no 2NR.. functionally you can not go for all 4 flows in the last speech and because you had so little time, you werent able to say anything of substance on any of the flows. You have to make decisions in the final speeches.
Date of debate:7/9 Debating on:Debate #3 Instructor/commentator:Baker Comments:
-try to look up from your computer on occasion
-don't give underviews of cards immediately after you read them
-in the 1ar, you should focus on extending 2AC arguments and reading new evidence only when its necessary
-always use all of the time allotted
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: 6/21/12
Debating on: High speed rail aff
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Great first speech! Work on flowing so you can keep track of arguments. Clash with the 1NC as much as possible.Date of debate: 6/22
Debating on: topicality mini debatesInstructor/commentator: Katie Gjerpen
Comments:
You need to add some more arguments to your speech - it's too short! Try to explain the "why" or "because" behind some of your claims that you make (for instance, why is the military aff "improbable" or "always going to win"?). Including a succinct explanation will also help make your speech longer. Try to stay a little more organized too - go top to bottom.
Date of debate: 6/23
Debating on: TheoryInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
2ac on no neg fiat was awesome.
great job of doing line by line!
2nc on cond:
Date of debate: 6/28
Debating on: CP mini debateInstructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
2AC
- You've fallen into a bit of a trap on the first card you read. It says states won't invest. But the problem is that the CP fiats that investment. This is a bit confusing, so it's worth figuring out why this card doesn't help that much.
- The next card is far more useful. Makes a claim that states will be UNABLE to solve the problem, even if they try.
- I would like to hear slightly more direct discussion of what the affirmative does. You've picked some useful cards, and that's sufficient, but a good 2AC should speak about the aff as much as possible.
2NC
- Same comment as with Peter. It's good that you respond to their #1 with a strong offensive argument against federal action, but you also need to prove that states CAN solve.
- You're picking good cards to read here, but it's veering a bit too much into the type of speech that ONLY reads evidence. You want to give the judge your own arguments, not just what the authors say. Only the flexibility argument, you do a nice job of this. More of that!
1AR
- To open, you want to extend your own argument. You are primarily attempting to explain why federal spending is good, which is important, but your primary goal should be proving that the states DON'T work.
- Pretty good job on uniformity. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'connected networks' and 'synergizing' though.
- For the perm, would like to hear a tiny bit more.
Date of debate:6/27
Debating on:DisadsInstructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-make sure to set up safety nets and other options for your arguments that dont assume you win everything so you have options in the final speeches of the debate
-good use of the other sides arguments - make sure to start with your argument though and then explain how theirs doesnt respond
Date of debate: 6/29
Debating on: CP/theory/DAInstructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Be sure to differentiate between the CP and the DA and be clear when you are moving from one to the other. (Also stay organized so that you make all the arguments on the appropriate flow.) In the 2AC, you don't need to say "They bring up this CP which has the states act..." Presumably the judge will understand that from the 1NC.
In the 2AC on politics, you should diversify your arguments more -- rather than just 2 cards that say Magnitsky won't undermine relations, attack different levels of the DA like the uniqueness, link, and terminal impact.
In the 1AR, focus more on extending/explaining/developing the 2AC argument than on reading new evidence.
Date of debate: 7/2
Debating on: High Speed Rail (Practice Debate 1)Instructor/commentator: Nick
Comments:
- Before your speech you should tell the judge the order you’ll be introducing new arguments and answering the case to help them flow your arguments more easily.
- There’s no need to summarize the evidence you’ve just read – this is the reason you read the tag before the card itself.
- In terms of strategy, what’s the utility of reading evidence on the case that the Senate opposes funding? As part of a politics disad, this is good link evidence, but if just read alone it’s not as useful because of the affirmative’s use of fiat.
- Fantastic job in cross-x on the question of construction. Also very good on pushing why people would use it and how much of the population would.
- You shouldn’t need prep time for the 1NR – use the time when your partner is speaking to prepare your speech.
- Great job on the spending debate – you’ve correctly identified the crux of the issue is whether spending now hurts the economy more than the potential long-term benefits of infrastructure. Good impact extension, but it could probably be shorter. You should also try to explain how economic decline would affect solutions to climate change, the other aff advantage.
- Try to use all your time – you should be reading additional evidence if possible.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: practice debate BInstructor/commentator: Nicole
Comments:
Your 2nc is very good about answering every argument as you go. Great job! Your answers to 50 state fiat were a little light (try to make 1 or 2 more reasons why it is good), but otherwise that was good.
You do a good job explaining why it is similar to Japan and wy it would be bad if its run federally.
2nr:
use all of your prep. No point in leaving a minute left
You do a good job of going through all of their arguments, but need to reference some evidence and make sure you are comparing arguments.
Date of debate: 7/6
Debating on: Practice BInstructor/commentator: Sterman
Comments: Work on line by line. Read terminal impacts and do impact calculus.
Date of debate: 7/7
Debating on: Practice Debate D (2N)Instructor/commentator: Quigley
Comments:
-Never take prep for CX, especially of the 1AC
-Make sure not to reread cards from the 1NC
-You need to go systematically on the line by line, don't just read new evidence but also engage with their evidence. So tell me which 2AC answer your on, explain your argument, attack their evidence and only then read new evidence if you need to.
-Better job making analytic arguments on the CP debate but I still want you to be more systematic
-Always try to use all your speech time
-I don't think this "people wont use it" argument is very persuasive. I'd focus on can't solve warming and defense to competitiveness.
-Need to kick the CP at the top of the 2NR, since you've conceded the permutation. Then go to the DA and win that, explain why you have implicitly answered most of the things they said you'd dropped (example of why you need to go line by line in the 2NC), and win that. Only then should you move on to the case.
-Be systematic and try to answer each argument that the 1AR extended. But remember you only need one or two args on each case page, so pick your best ones.
-Use all your time!
Date of Debate: 7/8
Debating on: Round 1Instructor/commentator: Kwaii Bell
Comments: FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [and do it on paper!] if you dont have any of the other teams arguments written down, then how can you expect yourself to answer them? You can not both debate paperlessly off your computer and attempt to flow on your computer. There were many strategic issues coming out of the 1NC that we talked about after round. But, just be wary... and be sure to talk to your partner so you guys come up with the strat together. and there was no 2NR.. functionally you can not go for all 4 flows in the last speech and because you had so little time, you werent able to say anything of substance on any of the flows. You have to make decisions in the final speeches.
Date of debate:7/9
Debating on:Debate #3
Instructor/commentator:Baker
Comments:
-try to look up from your computer on occasion
-don't give underviews of cards immediately after you read them
-in the 1ar, you should focus on extending 2AC arguments and reading new evidence only when its necessary
-always use all of the time allotted
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!