Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
Practice Debate -- Judge: Peyton
Date: 7/23
Affirmative Team
Negative Team
1A: Ben
2A: Gabe
1N: Alejandra
2N: Donald
1A Comments
1AC
-
:55 left in the 1AC, need more cards- you should practice
Need to read an impact to this hege argument
Cx of 1NC
-
Careful on tone just a tiny bit
1AR
-
-
Careful that you’re answering the distinct and specific block arguments on case
Don’t want to explain economic collapse as coming from debt because you increase the
federal debt…
Work on case efficiency to get to offcase with more time
Want to pick more carefully – go for the arguments the neg block undercovered or
dropped from the 2AC when extending arguments offcase
More time spent on the K – you have 2:00 after case – definitely spend 1:30 on the K and
go for the permutation and alt fails arguments, not just explanations for why revolutions
fail
On states you should extend the conceded theory argument as a reason to reject the
argument and then just deal with the federalism net benefit quickly by extending dropped
args
1N Comments
1NC
-
Don’t need multiple uniqueness cards for Federalism disad – missing a link
Don’t read federalism impact on the states CP if you want NB to be separate
Maybe politics is a better net benefit?
Don’t need to reread an econ impact card when its already a case impact
Try to get to the case with a little more time – ideally we want answers on the oil
dependency flow.
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
1NR
-
No Prep for the 1nr please 
Too much in the block – extending everything means it was shallow
Should answer 2aC arguments with explanation on the kritik, not just new cards.
Make a decision in the middle of 1NR – running out of time and might need to kick the
CP (answer theory) and just extend federalism
2A Comments
2AC
-
Work on smoothness – you sound a little like you’re trying to speak faster than you can
Generally good arguments and diversity for each flow
2AR
-
-
-
-
Need to justify why reasonability is a better framework than competing interpretations –
the “race to the bottom” argument needs to be explained and impacted – what is it? Why
is it bad for debate? What does it mean if you win reasonability?
Want to try to tie your 2ar arguments to the 1ar to make it seem less new – also I’d start
with an argument about why the extensive 2nr development justifies extreme leniency on
affirmative explanation
On standards I think you’re playing good defense to theirs but not enough on offense—if
you don’t win reasonability then you need an offensive argument for why your
interpretation is better, whether that’s aff flex/innovation, or education etcetera.
Good pointing out that limits is largely debated on the impact level and not the link level
2N Comments
Cx of the 1AC
-
Good pointing out no hege impact
Need to push further – not just the first question and then accept the answer- press on oil
dependency more
2NC
2NR
Need to do line by line on the Topicality debate – you only answered the we meet, not the
rest of it
Careful you’re not extending arguments on case that your 1nc didn’t read
Make sure you’re answering the aff responses to 1nc arguments – remember clash
requires both explanation of your arguments, and answering their arguments
I think this block division is a little rough. Lots of case is good but you don’t have any
offense on the case so there’s a heavy burden on the 1NR
Don’t want to make arg that indpt – and independence doesn’t solve shocks – then aff can
say transition key which only aff does
Northwestern Debate Institute 2012
Practice Debate Feedback
-
Probably not the right 2nr choice – should’ve gone for the K and case defense
No new cards in the 2nr
Impact work was good but way too new based on the explanation in the block and got a
little repetitive
Must fill all your time.