Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
Practice Debate # _9__
Date: 7-27-2012
Affirmative Team
Negative Team
1A: Carol
2A: Raymond
1N: Shireen
2N: Naveena
1A Comments

"Here are some examples of transportation infrastructure that the plan might involve” is a
little odd. I don’t understand what the plan does.

Be careful on solvency questions in 1AC CX, esp. when she says, “So it’s just…” – you
may accidentally set up CP solvency.

On the case flow in the 1AR, use the 1NC structure

Don’t start on the states CP by reading a card – it seems new. Work it into the line by
line.

Whether to extend 50 state fiat theory is a question you have to answer in the prep time.

This Katz trickle-up card is very dangerous.
1N Comments






What’s the link to the K? You say capitalism is at the root of the oppression of the
disabled, and you say that capitalism causes extinction, but what is the link?
Really glad you numbered your arguments on the case.
Great impact overview on elections, particularly on Romney would be bad for the
disabled.
I wouldn’t describe the CP as “doing the plan.”
Your empirical example isn’t “last year” – that’s about 2008.
I like that refer to 2AC numbers – you should also refer to a short summary of the
arugment. Not just “2AC 6” but “2AC 6: Non-unique.” You do this really really well
with every other 2AC argument.
2A Comments

“You” is the judge. The other team is “they.”

Why give that overview on the case instead of just making those arguments against
utilitarianism? That’s where it’s all most relevant.
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback

Your 2AC is extremely clear and really fun to listen to.

We need some stronger states CP answers.

In the 2AR on states, we need to cite particular cards on federal responsibility.

Have to deal with this “trickle-up / counterpoint to federal government” Katz card.

The no link arguments about how little the plan spends are pretty new in the 2AR but
probably worth trying anyway.
2N Comments

Excellent 2NC. Really glad you remembered to go back to the reverse side of your States
flow.

Can we read a card that says states are responsible for 75% (or whatever it is) of
transportation infrastructure funding?

Nice efficient extension of T. When you get moving, you move through the line-by-line
quickly.

When he says that they solve extinction in the CX, we need to use that opportunity to
make solvency arguments – obviously transportation infrastructure is not enough.

You should start the 2NR with your way to win the debate – in this case, the elections
DA. Why is it that the judge will vote neg? Explain that at the top, with a big “even if”
statement… “Even if they win a solvency deficit…”

We need a 2-3 sentence overview on the states CP in the 2NR

On passivity, also need to say the CP is an action. Their K is a critique of inaction.

We need to answer this states “obstacles to solvency” card in 1AR.
Additional Comments about the Debate