Kristin+&+Austin+vs.+Serena+&+Aja+-+GFDI+Practice+2

Austin (1AC): Clarity really needs to improve. Don’t forget to label the plan text with “plan” or something similar. You sound like you’re just reading a tag. With speaking drills and proper posture, your reading will greatly improve

Aja (1NC): Reading is slowly getting better. Nothing really wrong with the structure of the 1NC. Additionally, you will need a better link on politics if you plan to go for this in the 2nr.

Kristin (2AC): Reading is good. Your analytics are smart. Don’t let your partner dominate your thinking. Watching you work shows a little evidence of this. Never read a reverse voting issue. There is no reason to vote against a team for reading an argument. Your 1A needs to be back flowing for you. I looked over and he’s not flowing at all. This is really bad practice. You answer a question in CX that your aff exists now. You probably want to avoid this answer because 1) its not true and 2) it means you vote neg on presumption.

Serena (2NC): You’re making some of the same mistakes as every time I’ve judged you when you read politics. Dates don’t outweigh. Post dates aren’t a reason for outweighing- that’s just a way to make evidence comparisons. Aja should not interrupt you in this scenario. She actually ruined your momentum (I think). Aja’s job during your speech is not to be the world police, but to prep her 1NR. A huge issue in partnerships is trust. I think you’re trying to stand up for yourself. Remember, personal issues – leave them out. On the Immigration DA – you need to just say Illegal Immigration bad! You shouldn’t say “that’s probably not a good thing.” The 2NC is functionally conceding a lot of the debate. You need to answer the 2AC arguments not just extend cards from the 1NC. When you’re extending cards, you need to actually extend the warrants – not just the cite. You are also very accusatory over concession by the aff. They really didn’t concede much. By you saying they did it makes your speech worse. Again the issues in this speech go back to problem of yesterday and your lack of answering arguments & properly extending cards.

Aja (1NR) – You should never have to pause at the beginning of a speech especially in the middle of an overview to look for your interpretation. You’re not answering probably the most offensive counter interp they can read on this type of specification debate – that is they’ll defend normal means – you get ground to every agency. When you concede this, you’re probably not going to win an impact story on the Topicality flow. You should probably not be doubling up on Serena’s work. This probably explains why you were over her shoulder the whole time. “Apply the card to the one that they read” is extremely vague – you need to be properly citing their citations when cross applying the argument.

Austin (1AR) – As a debater it is probably always easier to flow every advantage on a separate flow so you acan easily adjust to however your judge flowed the argument. Speaking drills will help speed you up. You need to speed up analytics. When extending cards don’t just extend the tags – you have to extend the warrants. Sound like a human, not a robot. Some of the arguments in the 1AR are bad and flat out incorrect. I also think a lot of your problems stem from the fact that you’re smart. Smarter arguments are usually defensive. That is, smarter arguments in this round seem to be analytical arguments that are defensive. You are tending to these arguments. Don’t forget the offense Kristin works hard to put on the flow.

Serena (2NR): You kicked out of the DA by extending Winners Win? That’s a link turn. This means you’ve conceded that that aff solves CTBT ratification. I think the 2NR decision is good – I wish the 2NC would have expanded more on immigration though. At the point where the 1AR functionally makes 1 argument, which is horrible, you’re in good shape on this flow. I think to really win with this 1NC shell – you will need to a little bit of a framework debate and actually debate why dehumanization outweighs and/or value to life o/w extinction. The aff is pretty on point when they say life is a prereq to dehum. The problem with this 2NR strategy is that you’re not really winning the case debate. If you are, you’ll probably get the risk that dehumanization outweighs. You should probably be arguing how the DA is a direct case turn. The 2NR’s role in the debate is to frame the best possible debate for the judge so that the negative will win easily. You shouldn’t be chewing gum while debating.

Kristin (2AR): They don’t concede the impact turn – they concede the link turn. You also need to make sure you are making the right direction of the argument. You argue CTBT Bad – however the advantage you capture through your link turn is actually CTBT Good. The problem with the 2AR on the Immigration flow is you only have 1 really bad defensive argument to work with. I like the fact that you are using some risk analysis. “Stupid” and “Pointless” are not arguments, they are commentary. You should be making impacted arguments as the 2AR. To fully take advantage of the politics DA you really need to some type of impact analysis.


 * RFD: I voted affirmative in this debate because the negative is full of defense in the end and has no real offense to combat against the impacts of the affirmative. The combined sum of bioterrorism and econ advantages are enough to outweigh the disad. **