Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
Practice Debate # __2__
Date: 7/13/2012
Affirmative Team
Negative Team
1A: Alex
2A: Anjay
1N: Jack
2N: Neeral
Very nice debating all around.
1A Comments










Long wheezing breaths – we may need to breath slightly more often to make each breath
a little less noticeable
We don’t need to say “AND” between each card – use vocal variety to differentiate tags,
cites, and cards
Too much CX about particular cards – but that was a nice start to the 1NC CX, but it’s all
about the quotes
Here’s the problem with 1AR theory: if conditionality is OK, they will win “reject the
argument not the team,” and they’re already kicking it! If we extend it at all, it needs to
be really really quick.
Nice kick of the economy advantage
Good job tying China advantage to the Cap K. You should also extend the impact and
argue that it outweighs elections!
Not going for the perm is dangerous, esp. when your partner did some nice work on it in
the 2NC CX
Your framework arguments are more useful with the perm – weighing the case is part of
it, but the other part in the 2AC was severing your advantages to avoid the link with the
perm, which is even better when you’re kicking the economy advantage.
Need more time on elections, but if we lightened up on theory, we’d have plenty.
A very nice speech.
1N Comments



You sound great
We need more analytic arguments on the case
You say “and also” between every case card – it’d be way better to number them (or if
nothing else, just say “and”)
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback



Your line-by-line debating in the 1NR is very nice, and you have a lot to do, and you
make a superhuman effort to get it done, but we have to get to elections with more time –
maybe fewer cards on the case.
Your 1NR left me quite impressed.
Be sure to keep flowing the debate even after your 1NR – important to double-check your
partner during the 2NR and to help him make decisions during prep time.
2A Comments









Nice 2AC
We need way more on this freight turn
Need to give more thought to our States theory answers – discuss in lab soon
We’re spending a disproportionate amount of time on States, esp. on the Federalism net
benefit. I agree the CP is a big threat to our case, but the Elections DA is the biggest
threat of big neg offense. We need to make sure we have enough time there.
Really glad that you focused the 2NC CX on the perm
Why are they “performative” contradictions? Aren’t they just contradictions?
Let’s give thought to opening our 2AR with the 2-3 most powerful sentences possible.
Not just “they didn’t go to this flow,” but “War with China is imminent – now is not the
time for ivory tower discussions of economic philosophy” or whatever.
The timeframe stuff is great, but the “warming isn’t real” stuff just isn’t very well
supported in this debate – it makes the rest of your timeframe argument less credible.
Their best argument is that extinction is inevitable if we don’t eliminate capitalism. Our
best argument is that they can’t break down capitalism. How can we best challenge their
“try or die” logic?
2N Comments








Unless your partner is really giving away the farm (he’s not), don’t speak for him in the
1NC cx
Why did we answer the perm before “cap inevitable” when the 2AC made those
arguments in opposite order?
Be sure to use the six-step formula for case extensions that I gave you in lab the other day
We need to rethink this neg block a bit. Elections is only an option if we beat the block,
but we’re covering solvency and an advantage in 30 seconds of the 2NC, and we’re
leaving the other advantage and conditionality to the 1NR, who also has to win the DA?
You’ve shown your hand a bit that you’re going for the K.
As a general principle, we want to handle theory arguments in the 2NC. The 1NR prep
time advantage is too important to waste.
2A is light on elections – we should find a way to build our strategy around that DA in
the neg block, even if it requires some tough work on the CP or the case.
In the 2NR, you can spend less time on theory – conditionality means reject the argument
not the team, and you’ve already kicked it.
You should go to the elections DA and kick it explicitly, even though they don’t have
offense.
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback




Nice 2NR overview – you need a clear “even if” statement: “Even if they win their China
war impact, ecological crisis outweighs because…”
I’m not sure the 1AR extended perm – make that clear and then link your Perm DAs back
to the plan.
We keep bumping cap inevitable down the flow, when it’s usually the first aff answer.
On cap inevitable, we need to make “try or die” arguments – if extinction is inevitable,
we have to do something!

Additional Comments about the Debate:
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback