Serena+&+Aja+vs.+Steven+&+Dami+-+GFDI+Practice+1+-

Serena (1AC) – You are actually reading very well. You will need to increase your speed however throughout the year – this can be done with several types of speaking drills we have discussed this week. I would be careful about your advantage. You only read one advantage- if you are not ready to win the link debate you are putting yourself in some dangerous ground. Before reading this – you will need a Rights Advantage toolkit because you are apt to hit quite a few rights K’s and arguments.

Steven (2NC CX) – Your questions regarding the alternate causality debate are pretty good – but you get the answer you want, you should move on. I would be careful going as much in on this solvency takeout argument. You need to consider your 2NC CX as a set up for the 1NC.

Dami (1NC) – First of all, you are a little unclear. Your 1NC order should never split up your offcase arguments. You are giving the 2AC 6 minutes to answer case arguments. This is usually how you get the 2AC to use prep time. It’s just a bad strategy. The cross application between the solvency & advantage flow can be saved until the 1NR. This can be a part of an extension of the argument. The 1NC impact for the Immigration Turn is probably a good choice for this round. The dehumanization arg will allow you to weigh a similar impact to rights. On politics, it may just be me, but I think reading a link after the uniqueness card is a good idea. Also, why would you read multiple internal link scenarios in the 1NC on CTBT. And what is your purpose in reading multiple impact modules? For this second impact module, you’re not even impacting multilateralism – therefore what is the purpose of reading it? For cross-x, be careful with your answers – don’t answer questions with other questions. You want to be very thorough in your answering.

Serena (1AC CX) – You may want to be careful about a couple things that are happening in the beginning. You may want to face the judge in certain rounds – a lot of people will like this strategy and it will help your speaker points. The second problem is that you seem really sensitive about this issue – remember the politics lecture – take your beliefs out of the situation – this even means on the affirmative – even if you feel really passionate about immigration and healthcare. What I thought would happen is what actually does happen – that is, you start to become very rude in certain circumstances. Also, don’t say “This is my CX” – an alternative route in saying this could be “Anyways” or some type of disregarding of their question.

Aja (2AC – 4 minutes of prep used) – You should not really be using much prep here (if any at all) – they are giving you plenty of time to prep the case arguments during their 1NC. All of these off case arguments except for the T you have specific blocks to. The 2AC order should go case, T, offcase arguments. Again a lot of “uhs” while reading. When answering this disad on case – you’re essentially still needing to answer the disad – that means make sure some type of offense is on that flow. You only answer this with a non unique. The case debate is very messy. You have NO EXCUSE for this. You’ve had over 10 minutes to prep for case- this should be the easiest flow for you – its your affirmative. What is the point of reading 3 language barrier cards? You are answering a 15 second 1NC arg with 1 min of cards. You need to update your 2AC blocks especially if you are not reading the econ & bioterror advantages. Your case outweighs becomes useless. I think you need to redo your Capitalism block – I think the alt debate needs to be one of the first things to discussed. Your 2ac concedes quite a bit on the case flow which means you’re already putting yourself behind in the debate. When Dami asks questions, you don’t have to repeat the question. It gets annoying and doesn’t functionally do anything but waste his time. It also appears as if you don’t know the answer to the question.

Dami (1NC CX) – A better way to ask this first question is – “how does affirmative, through the 2ac argumentation, outweigh no value to life?” These “if we win x, do we win the round” arguments aren’t that effective because the affirmative is not going to concede the round.

Steven (2NC – 4 minutes of prep used) – You can’t concede the uniqueness on the disad on case. It functions exactly like a disad. When you concede the uniqueness, you’re conceding the fact that immigration is high now – and that is there is no value to life in the squo – this means the aff can probably use this to acess as an advantage with a simple case analytic. All of your impact modules you read in the 2NC need impacts. You don’t read a prolif impact to the prolif scenario. Also, I know Chalko was in the file – but don’t read it. You finally explain the purpose of the multilateralism card – I think this functions better as a 2NC card rather than a 1NC card. Take this out of the 1NC and you now have another card on case. The time tradeoff here is totally worth it. I also don’t think you’re doing a good job on the uniqueness debate – you simply extend your 1NC card which they say concedes aff.

Dami (1NR - 2.5 minutes of prep used) – You have now had almost 20 minutes to prep for the 1NR. You literally DO NOT MENTION 1 impact in the cap flow. This is not a good 1NR. You’re not answering the bulk of the arguments. For 20 minutes of prep, this speech should be stellar. Serena (1AR – 3 minutes of prep used) – Topicality should never be on the bottom. Speaking drills will insanely help your speech. You have to be fast in the 1AR – you’re answering the 13 minutes worth of speeches. Again, you need to be consolidating the 2AC answers and quickly answering them. The speech you are giving is more of a public forum speech – you need to focus n the basics and not necessarily say some of these filler stories. Your 2A gives you the advice, “Read the tags and go” – this is horrible advice. You should know your advantages without her telling you to read the tags. You are conceding the K – this is not good especially since they are reading a framework in the 1NR about how the K comes first and should be evaluated prior to affs impacts. Luckily for the affirmative, the 1NR is horrible on the K debate.

Steven (2NR – 3 minutes of prep used) – You still will need to kick out of the disad – they can garner some type of framework in the 2AR that policy impacts outweigh especially in a world where you don’t have impacts really mentioned in the 1NR. The 2NR overview on the K is pretty decent because you’re doing some overall work about the flows –and using your impacts on the case debate very well in a world of the K. I think you realize the 1NR sucked on the K – and you are using something that went well in the block to your advantage. That’s a pretty good idea to still answer 2AR extensions of the 2AC – those are expected – you do a good job extending the defense by the 1NR. The problem with the 2NR is there is NEVER a framework extended. This means the judge defaults to their paradigm which usually would be some type of policymaking. You’re not going to win many debates in this situation because big stick affs will easily outweigh K’s. Yet again, the Immigration DA does have to unique.

Aja (2AR) – You need to realize the other flows not extended in the 2NR – they concede the politics lnk turns in the 2NR. In the top of 2AR you need to address the lack of framework extended- and that the judge should default to a policymaker. The only policy left in the end of the round is the aff. This means you judge between the aff and the squo – any risk that the aff is better than the squo – means you would win. When extending your case and doing the impact analysis – again you need to be very familiar with these arguments. I think if you exploit the framework issue, capture te politics DA as an advantage you could win the impact debate against the Value to Life arguments.

**RFD: The illegals turn goes conceded on the case debate which means the aff creates no value to life. The only way to solve for the value to life – which I think is the biggest impact in the round (never really told me after the 1NC) is the K.**