Date of debate: Fri. 6/24

Debating on: Neg vs. Constellation aff
Instructor/commentator: Katie
Comments:
-Good signposting and concise reference to the aff’s evidence (by author name too!)
-You need to impact your arguments more – it’s the 2NC! Do some more analysis.

Date of debate: 6/25

Debating on: T - SETI ≠ beyond mesosphere
Instructor/commentator: Mikaela
Comments: Good job on the we meet argument.
You need more development on why your counterinterpretation is better. It's great that you explain that the negative is overlimiting, but why is the aff interpretation GOOD for debate? Also, why is overlimiting bad?
Make a reasonability argument! Competing interpretations is bad! You all act scared of this important component of T.

Date of debate: 6/27

Debating on: New Constellation Advantage
Instructor/commentator: Chris Crowe
Comments:
Your analyticals are getting a little unclear because they are basically entirely written down and you’re reading them like a card.
Unclear on your “private space doesn’t exist” card.
You plow through parts of the card unclearly instead of establishing clarity. Work on establishing clarity and building up. You got more clear later in the speech when you slowed down while reading cards a little bit.
You left :45 so it wasn’t even necessary to go that fast (or you could go that fast and be more clear and add more arguments).
Try to avoid sweeping generalizations ("they didn't answer anything I said!").
Try to divide your prep time a little better!
Overall, pretty darn good for a first run at these arguments. This is a good candidate for a speech to redo, whether or not you can do it in front of a staff member.

Date of debate: 6/29

Debating on: Mini Debate 4 -- Constellation (politics + heg)
Instructor/commentator: Zach Markovich
Comments: Good clear 1nc, a few things to improve on
A) Try to be clearer on the tags -- while you don't necessarily need to go slower, you need to really push yourself to make the tags crystal clear. A lot of times it's more just a change in emphasis rather than needing to slow down. Work on reading tag lines as you would in a debate next time your doing speed drills. The control drill (where you start reading a card slowly and then gradually pick up speed in the middle of the card before slowing down again) should help with this.

B) Start a little bit slower -- we need time to warm up to your voice.

C) Hi-light cards -- should be pretty self explanatory.

Date of debate: 6/30

Debating on: Competitive bidding CP and debt ceiling DA
Instructor/commentator: Kathryn Kernoff
Comments:
2NC: Slow down! Especially start slower. You can't try to read your speech like a card. Good job making multiple responses to each 2AC argument and reading cards when appropriate. Put your impact calculus on the line-by-line where you answer the impact takeout - otherwise it's repetitive. Also, make sure all of your impact calculus and evidence comparison is actually comparative. Don't just say what your card's qualifications are - compare it to their card.

Date of debate: 7/2/11

Debating on: K mini debate
Instructor/commentator: Zach R
Comments:
Nice delivery.
For FW, it should be a numbered list, and a little bit longer. Have a couple of justification.
Don't read perm do the alt.
Have a clear "tag" for your analytical and theory arguments. E.g. for the arg after your second perm, you can say "the alternative links back to the k." It'll make it easier for the judge to flow.
Overall, good diversity and strength of args.

Date of debate: 7/7 Practice Debate

Debating on: 1AR (Block = Coercion K, Spending DA, Case)
Instructor/commentator: Alex
Comments:
Good 1AR structure - grouping arguments and embedded clash was smart - one way to make this even more efficient is hard numbering - helps differentiate between arguments as well. Allowed you to move through case quickly. Also excellent job (in most places) picking and choosing your best arguments and only going for them (for example, only extending space mil inevitable because it was dropped on the space mil bad turn).
While the picking and choosing was good in most places, you want to be more efficient in answering some of their arguments - too much time spent on microwave turn when half the arguments weren't really responsive.
Good explanation of turn on the spending disad. If they concede that space spending solves the economy though, do you really also want to extend impact defense? You could straight turn it and force the 2NR to answer that as well
Want to put more arguments on coercion - it was almost the entire 2NC but a very small part of the 1AR and you had an entire minute left in the 1AR.
Never finish the 1AR early - they just spoke for 13 minutes, surely you can find something to say.



Date of debate: 7/7

Debating on: practice debate B
Instructor/commentator: jackie/zofia
Comments:
Very good CX- pointed questions and standing up and facing the judge :D
However- don’t ask questions about the internal link to heg that can be answered by the cards. Instead read those cards and have more specific questions about them.
Aren’t there alt causes?- avoid questions like this. CX isnt a time to make arguments it’s a time to clarify and establish arguments.
Think of it like this: If you don’t care what Rohits response to a question is, then don’t ask it. Instead ask questions that you can listen and ask smart follow up questions to get to bolstering the argument you would just usually make in cx.
YAYYY! I’m not going to kill you now- smart moving extending the K. Yes there are a lot of args but a lot of them are so blippy you don’t have to spend a ton of time on them .
ALSO WHEN DID YOU GET SO FAST?!!?! <3
You need to drastically change your answers to Booth- you should be making arguments not about VTL but
YOU MUST MARK CARDS-YOU WILL LOSE ROUNDS IF YOU DO NOT FOR CHEATING. WHEN YOU SAY MARK A CARD-TAKE YOUR MOUSE AND MARK THE CARD. You will not remember at the end of your speech when you stopped- and if you can’t provide an ACCURATE place you stopped reading the card you are cheating. You know this.
Change the way you debate case- I have no idea what argument you are talking about it’s just author shouting again. 1NC #1- That’s X argument <extend it> and then make your answers to theirs.
Impact arguments on case- instead of “they don’t have an advantage” for the SPS takes forever make it more specific and talk about why it can’t solve heg because it will take us X years to get into space and by then we have X card son the heg advantage that says we will lose dominance by then.
Good knowledge of the K- you are obviously very familiar with the literature Don’t let this be a crutch camp is all about going for arguments you aren’t comfortable going for. Better to mess it up here than in actual rounds. So make sure you are diversifying and go for args that are not the K at the camp tournament and practice debates.
To Alvin and Emily- this is a VERY good example of why the 2N and 1N need to talk during the debate. After 13 minutes of prep Emily figured out she wasn’t extending the wrong thing. Have a quick conversation right after the 2AC and make sure everyone knows who is taking what flows. That is SUPER important.
Don’t interrupt Emily’s speech unless she is about to lose you the debate- it hurts her cred a lot and what you interrupted her for just wasted time because it didn’t really matter .
Organization- go to each flow once. Know what the 1NC read. You don’t even have your flows with you,… and you don’t seem to be flowing- which is pretty evident in the organization of your speech. Which is frustrating because you are making the right arguments they just are all over the place.
I was very impressed with the 2NR- you had very good case debating. Just focus a little less on the impact debate and a little more on the internal links on case because that’s largely what you are ahead on.
WAYYYY too much impact cal. Your speech was split like 60-40 for impact cal V. arguments. Your impact arguments don’t matter if you don’t get to them. Make sure you WIN the arguments you need first. In this debate it would have been much better to spend this time on the internal link arguments on the case.
Good job flowing the 2AR- this is important as the 2N to understand why you won//lost and for redos.


Date of debate: 7/8

Debating on: Practice Debate C
Instructor/commentator: Tatsuro
Comments:

2NC - Good explanation of the security K in the 2NC. Just a few things: be sure to stay as organized as possible. YOu're jumping around the flow a lot which makes it difficult to flow.You are doing a good job explaining the thesis of the security K but I think your speech could go from a good speech to a great speech if you did more specific analysis. Instead of indicting the notion of hegemony in general, apply your cards that you read to their aff - and make your alternative specific to this debate and how you can resolve the securitization that the aff engages in. I think your 2NC was also very fast and technical which was good - but be sure not to spread yourself thin and take too many flows; decide with your partner before the block how you want to divide the flows - so you can have a consistent and narrower strategy coming out of the neg block.
2NR - good impact calculus here and in the 2nc - be sure to do the larger tying together of arguments that we discussed.


Date of debate: 7/11

Debating on: Round 3
Instructor/commentator: Charles
Comments:
The most unclear part of your 1AC is the reading of tags. You have a different voice you use there which both over-enunciates and smooshes the words together. Try to speak more naturally for that part of the speech.

You should put the counterplan on the top, since it’s the place you’re most likely to win the debate (on theory). Don’t risk getting bogged down.

You are far too focused on the details of what and when they made arguments (how they tagged things, what speech they read a card in, etc.) and not nearly focused enough on actually winning the underlying argument. Your only answer to their soft power fails argument is “they didn't read this card in the 1NC.” But they DID read it in the 2NC so you have to answer it now.

You need to explain things. You assert a lot of things, but there is often no substance behind them. Your coverage is great, but it would be really nice if you start to supplement mere coverage with some explanation. For example, you just say “we’ll concede their uniqueness, so uniqueness overwhelms the link.” But that’s just a label for an argument – you have to actually MAKE the argument.

You failed to extend a couple very important arguments on the DA and CP. There was a no impact argument that the 2NC didn’t answer which you didn’t extend – would be far more important than anything else there.

RFD:
I vote aff on conditionality bad. The neg fails to respond to this at any point and it’s reasonably well explained by the aff. In a world where conditionality was not in the debate, I would likely vote affirmative. This is mostly because I don’t think there is a lot of uniqueness to the neg’s turns. Energy independence might cause instability, but dependence ALSO does. Satellites might hurt the environment, but lack of satellites definitely hurts the environment. However, I think the aff needs to do a much better job articulating these distinctions, meaning the substance would end up relatively close.



Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:



Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:



Date of debate:

Debating on:
Instructor/commentator:
Comments:



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!