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.