Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
Practice Debate # ____
Date: 7/11
Affirmative Team
1A: Naveena
2A: Sunny
Negative Team
1N: Julie
2N: Rebecca
1A Comments
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: No, but she needs to have much more of a
presence in her speeches and CX
2) Recommended Drills: Efficiency, volume
3) Assess use of evidence in rebuttals: quantity, quality, and comparison: More evidence needed
to be read on politics, uq question. No substantive evidence comparison was made on the politics
debate.
4) Strategic Choice and Execution of 1AR: Was too spread out, needed to escalate the debate
horizontally rather than vertically. Needs to learn how to pick and choose arguments and clash
with the negative’s arguments, especially answering turns the case, root cause, and epistemology
arguments on the critique. On the permutation, answer the neg’s passivity arguments, boost the
credibility of the perm by explaining how it resolves links, and reference the 2AC ev. We
discussed this in depth, but epistemology claims can be dispatched by explaining why you
should prefer specificity.
5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Make more permutation solvency and alt takeout arguments,
answer the neg arguments listed above, get efficient enough that you can start reading cards on
politics.
1N Comments
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: No.
2) Recommended Drills: Enunciation
3) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Needed
to do substantially more evidence comparison, especially since she was extending politics.
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
Compare the various UQ claims and why the neg’s subsumes the affs. Scrutinize the aff’s “states
doesn’t solve” evidence on the CP, and read the best evidence to answer it.
4) Strategic Choice and Execution of Block/1NR: Waaaaaay too spread out. Took the states CP,
federalism, and politics.
5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Choose one position, preferably politics. Make turns the case
arguments, evidence comparison on the uq debate, more diverse link arguments, maybe an
impact add-on for politics.
2A Comments
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: More enunciation
2) Recommended Drills: Efficiency, enunciation
3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: Much too much time on
case, not enough diverse arguments on the k and politics, needs to learn embedded clash, read
theory, add ons
4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: needs
to read more, diverse arguments on the off-case positions, but less cards on case
5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2AC/2AR: Above.
5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Much more fleshed out perm/link defense arguments, answer
epistemology, root cause, and more clash on framework
2N Comments
1) Speed/clarity issues with constructive or rebuttal: Needs to be slightly clearer
2) Recommended Drills: Clarity
3) 2AC—technical skill and coverage for case and off-case arguments: ??
4) Assess use of evidence in constructive and rebuttal: quantity, quality, and comparison: Read
less cards, make more arguments using the evidence you have. More link analysis and
EXAMPLES of the aff’s flawed epistemology.
5) Strategic Choice and Execution of 2NC/2NR: Its dangerous to go all-in on epistemology first,
and screw the rest of alt solvency. If a team is relatively competent on it, its hard to win. Extend
links better on the critique. More impact work.
5) Rebuttal Re-do suggestions: Above.
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
Additional Comments about the Debate:
Many more oral comments, the kids wrote them down
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback