Harrigan+Practice+Debate+Notes

toc

1AC
Sounds good, you have pretty good fluidity to your speaking style. If I had to guess, you could push yourself a bit become quicker without sacrificing clarity at all – this should be something that you focus on during speaking drills. Speech require __effort__, you have to __push__ to accelerate. Work on endurance, you start out faster than you ended the speech. Do speaking drills for 10+ minutes at a time. It’s like running with a parachute --- it makes giving a normal length speech seem easy. Good idea to read pre-empts in the 1AC to likely negative arguments. When answering Negative CX questions, you don’t always have to __directly__ respond. Sometimes you can respond to the premise by saying “that is not relevant, because _”.

CX of 1NC
Good focus on the K alt. It is better to ask a few questions about 1 issue than 1 question about many issues. Always ask about the status of the CP. If you are looking for questions to ask, the Politics DA is a softball. It has many logical holes/flaws.

1AR
Change the order: T, Case, CP, Politics. Don’t put the case on bottom. Work on prepping more in the block – you should try to save at least 3-4 minutes of prep time for the 2AR. T was pretty repetitive – don’t need to say “no abuse” so many times – 1 is enough CP: focus on solvency deficits – impact each argument you make – for example, what happens if states cut corners – how does that impact solvency in terms of the advantages Choose important arguments and read more evidence – the overdelegation turn on federalism is a pretty good example of this A lot of the explanation in the 1AR is unnecessary – the 1ar is a set-up speech for the 2ar – as long as the claim is in the 1ar, most judges will allow you to explain this later on. The 1ar is a time pressed speech – so if you can put something off, you should. On politics, focus on the arguments that were undercovered in the 1NR – don’t necessary extend every 2AC argument or start with the first arguments that were made in the 2AC – pick the spots where you think there were coverage errors, focus there, make a connection, and read more evidence

1NC
Stand up when you speak. Sitting down compresses your breathing and makes it difficult to be fast and clear for a sustainable period of time. Work on fluidity of speaking – eliminate pauses and delays while speaking to the greatest extent possible You have an issue with double-breathing – you don’t do it all of the time, but when reading evidence you tend to take big gasps. Work on breathing more often and at logical places (ends of sentances, etc.) Clarity of tags is declining as the speech goes on: the K tags were too fast/unpronounced. If you think that you aren’t going to cover in the 1NC, just cut something out – don’t try to go faster and sacrifice the clarity of all of your arguments. Integrate smart analytical arguments on the case in the 1nc. You don’t only need to read evidence. Analytics are quick to make and dramatically improve the coverage of the case

CX of the 2AC
Ask questions __exclusively__ about the argument that __you__ are going to be taking in the 1NR. You’re talking about the case, will this be a big part of the Neg block? Plan a few questions before the CX begins: you come off as needing to think them up on the fly.

1NR
Reverse the order – do politics first. If you don’t “cover” the case, it’s OK (you just don’t get the arguments that you couldn’t extend). If you don’t cover politics, that is not OK – you waste all the time that you spend extending 3/4ths of the argument Good explanation of evidence on the case. Be selective in which arguments you extend and read more evidence for most of the 1NC arguments that you choose to extend into the block. Start politics with impact calculus – warming outweighs – magnitude, probability, timeframe, turns case If you forget the cite for a piece of evidence, that is OK – you don’t need to read them all – just move on – no one will notice if you play it cool and don’t stop

2AC
-- List out the 2AC order. Never say “same as the 1NC”. People won’t remember. You have to repeat for them. --Order is wrong. Always do the following: T, Case, CP/K, DAs in order of best to worst. Whether you put the CP or K first is dependent on whether you think they are more likely to go for the CP or K – more likely = first. -- Extension of arguments should be different. Instead of “cross apply the __12 evidence --- it says devolution bad”, use the model of__ claim__,__ warrant__,__ cite__.__ “Devolution is bad, it causes a race to the bottom, that’s Smith”. -- Good fluidity to your speaking style, especially when reading evidence. You need to try to go as fast while making analytic arguments as you do when reading evidence, there is a bit of a disparity. -- Good use of analytics to supplement evidence -- make sure to make a theory argument about the status of the CP/K – it’s one of the few places of positive time trade-off for the Aff -- refer to their evidence generally by claim rather than warrant – most judges won’t flow the names of authors -- good line by line on the case – you want to use the model of “they say, but __” -- integrate questions that mark asked about the K in the CX into your 2AC on that argument – he made some inroads in to the alt – even if you don’t have evidence for the claim, make the argument analytically

CX of the 2NC
Good focus on federalism/states CP – this is the strongest argument in the 2NC and thus deserves the most attention

2AR
Change the order: case first, then CP, then federalism Keep your flows and timer in your hand at all times – you need to be aware in order to pace yourself and cover in a time pressed speech Impact long-term solvency: how likely is this? How does this affect the economy advantage? How will industry respond if they can’t fund over the long run? Federalism – focus on only arguments that were extended in the 1ar – there is a disjunct between the points of emphasis in this speech and the emphases of the 1AR Do you have evidence for the claims that you’re making in the 2AR? How about no modeling? Do impact calculus. Assume that there is a chance that the CP might solve some of the case and they might win some of the federalism net-benefit. In that instance, why does the case outweigh? Even if solvency arguments apply to both – you need to answer it. If that argument is true, neither the aff/cp solve the case – but the CP still has the __advantage__ of boosting federalism (Iraq). Make sure that you answer every 2NR case argument (ex: heg unsustainable) – if you drop a single argument, it can take out all of the case.

CX of 1AC
Good job backflowing!!! Good *sounding* question about statistics – but what relevance does it have? Are you setting up a major negative argument? Good control of the CX – you seem on top of the arguments that you want to make and are dictating the ethos of the time Good time management, getting to the 80:20 question that you knew that you wanted to ask

2NC
-- When kicking it, first say “not going for it” – clues the judge in fastest. Other than that, you kicked it right -- Its going to be hard to win on extra-t alone without answering the 2ac arguments – many of them implicitly answered extra-t – so even if you want to shadow extend the argument, you should be grouping a lot of the 2ac and answering them at least a little -- You are very clear and have a good sound – you need to get faster though. One way to do that is to do a LOT of speaking drills. Do some speaking every day – 10 minutes is all it takes. You’ll be surprised at the difference a month of practice can make. -- see the model of argument extension that I suggested for Arthur above – claim, warrant, cite is best. Judges flow it a lot better. -- work on efficiency: there are moments of repetitiveness (next argument, they say that (repeat long version of their claim), but _) – instead “US is the key model, not the EU” – this is called “implicit clash” – answering their arguments in a line-by-line fashion without specifically referencing each of them -- good debating of the warrants of evidence – their card assumes X but that isn’t true -- even in spots where you could make 1 argument and spin out of it, see if you can read more evidence – the block needs to get FAR ahead in order to weather the inevitable aff comeback in the 1ar/2ar -- do impact calculus RE: federalism – even though it is an internal net-benefit, you should do impact calc just like you would do for a DA – “Iraq instability outweighs: magnitude, timeframe, turns case, etc.”

2NR
Good order (CP, DA, Case). Perm: “even if the perm is legitimate, it still links”. The 1ar did a lot of work to prove its legitimacy, but not whether it was __net-beneficial__. Choose what net-benefit you will be going for: __either__ politics __or__ federalism. You probably don’t have time to effectively extend/develop both. If you choose to go for federalism, do impact calc on the top of the CP Federalism: use the specificity of Iraq to defeat the overdelegation turn – it’s a situation where decentralization is critical – more is better. Impact uniqueness – instability now. Politics – say “not going for it” – mostly extend the internal link takeout (epa regs not hurt the economy) – clean/clear way to kick out of it Select case arguments even more in the 2nr. You’re going for too much – make sure that you extend the argument and you answer what they have said in response

1AC
Plan is read a little too fast – makes it hard to understand because it is kind of long Turn your laptop to the side – allows you to maintain eye contact with the judge while being able to read. You are “speaking into the laptop” a little too much. Slight inefficiency when reading cites – you say “that’s Smith in 5” – instead say “Smith 5” Pretty good speed – need to work on clarity – overemphasize words in tags Eliminate the pause between reading the cite and beginning of evidence --- “Smith 5” (breath) “card … “ – too long, it’s only a habit Make sure that you emphasize key structuring points during the 1AC – you said “Subpoint B – MegaRegions” too fast. It’s a really important thing for the judge to hear/understand/flow

CX of the 1NC
Focus more – ask several follow up questions. While it can be good to make an inroad into each of a several arguments, it is usually more effective to devote the entirety of the CX to 1 or 2 major arguments that are the focus. Good questions about T. Many people don’t like asking questions about it, but they can actually be really effective. Ask about the status of the CP.

1AR
Change the order: T, Case, CP, DA. Never put the case on the bottom. If you drop it, you lose. If you drop/undercover the DA, you can still win that the case outweighs The best way to explain your reasons to prefer is to have 2 sections: 1) where you explain the offense reasons to prefer the interpretation of “in=within” (aff flex, grammar, etc.). 2) where you house all of your answers to limits (substantially checks, generics on the topic check, their interpretation doesn’t solve some of their limits claims because affs can still choose any type of infrastructure, your interpretation solves limits, few solvency advocates exist) Make a reasonability argument – even though it hasn’t been introduced – it’s a gut check argument that will persuade a lot of judges against subsets Smart move focusing on solvency deficits on the states CP – but, focus a bit more – select 2-3 of the best 2ac arguments and __read more evidence__ to develop it. Generally make sure that the solvency deficit that you are extending are something that fiat (immediacy/uniformity) doesn’t solve Good job identifying different internal links to the case – allows you to “kick”/not extend certain parts of the solvency mechanism for the case – to save time or to deny the neg access to their offense No need to prompt in the 2AR unless it’s a HUGE issue (dropping a theory argument, etc). most of the time it is unnecessary and distracting

CX of the 1AC
No need to say “my first question is” … for obvious reasons. Questions should primarily set up the Negative strategy – if you have a __clarification__ question like “what was the impact to hegemony”, you should be able to look through the 1ac yourself to answer the question If you ask the question “why is the fed key”, you have to have follow up questions that press the aff’s answers – otherwise, you are just giving the aff an opportunity to talk to the judge about their solvency deficits. CX is a tug of war – you can’t allow them to control the speech You should be flowing during the case portion of the 1NC (for yourself and for your partner). Backflow! Even if you can flow before the debate because it is a practice – do it in the round to develop the habit.

2NC
Flow more during the 2AC. You are spending too much time looking at the speech doc and not enough time writing down arguments. Clarity needs to be improved when reading evidence – you are good when reading tags, but slur words together a bit when reading the text of evidence – overenunciate to fix this problem Have a bit of a solvency overview on the CP – explanation what it is and how it solves – maybe make a distinction between multi-state compacts and the traditional state action that aff evidence assumes Do more line-by-line --- too much of the speech is just reading a wall of evidence, it needs to be applied and interact with their arguments Start politics with impact calculus – disad outweighs the case … Consider reading another impact to politics – interact with the case as much as possible Good idea reading additional links to the elections DA (florida / AFL/CIO) – but, when you read them, make sure that each one is combined with a matching internal link (“florida key to the election”, “labor union support swings the election”

2NR
-- No need to “start with an overview” – just begin with impact calc on the elections DA – “DA outweighs the case” – saying “we win the round because of the elections DA” is __assumed__ when you choose to go for it (and obviously want to win the debate on it) -- make sure to address the arguments that the aff made on each page in the 2nr. There were a few arguments on elections (most notably their claim that it is a double turn) that are dropped -- there is a decent amount of time left in your speech --- this should be used to a) cover all remaining issues on the politics DA and b) extend additional arguments on the case -- going for the status quo in this 2nr seems like a questionable decision. The block was not very heavy on case defense, making it hard for politics alone to outweigh. Did you consider 2NRs that involved a) Topicality alone or b) States and Politics c) States and Federalism instead? If so, what was the reason that you made the 2NR choice that you did? 2NR decision-making is one of the hardest parts of debate and something that you should always be reflecting upon to improve

1NC
Good sound and speed. Slow down a bit on theory arguments (including reasons to prefer on T and CP texts) – these are the hardest to flow/hear because it is a wall of argument without any evidence to break it up Pausing for too long in between cite and the beginning of evidence – it is inefficient, try your best to both breath and move along quickly. Integrate analytic arguments into the case in the 1nc – it is a very time-efficient way of expanding the number of arguments that you can make

CX of 2AC
Good question based on conclusiveness of their U evidence. When referencing an argument in CX, refer to the claim not the cite. If you say “the CBS card”, it is very likely that the judge will not know what you are talking about Good job CXing about theory – keep going, you were making progress .. Focus your cross-ex on arguments that you know you will be taking in the 1NR – leave elections/states to your partner because that will be in the 2NC.

1NR
Good T overview – perfectly follows the blueprint Refine your “Limits outweigh” block – it is one that you’ll read in a lot of T debates – so make sure that a) it makes all of the arguments that you want and b) it is edited to be as efficient as possible Good job reading other definitions like “the” – raises the tech burden for the 1ar – if they don’t say we meet or c/define, it is game over Remember that you defined “United States” in the 1NC. Did the 2AC counter-define this? Could be a good place for a connection at the top of the speech Prepare a caselist of what meets your interpretation. You should be able to explain a variety of cases and how it is different than the aff Introduce competing interpretations, even if they didn’t say “reasonability” – the aff should lose if their interpretation is not as good as the Neg Examples make the limits argument stronger: think of all the random types of infrastructure and multiple them by regions, states, cities, and specific locations. Every bridge, road, port, etc becomes topical. If the aff says that “substantially limits out those affs”, read a new violation based on “substantial” Good prompt to kick the CP – prompting usually isn’t a good idea – but here was necessary

2AC
Start at 80% and then accelerate until you get to full speed – it will allow you to collect your thoughts and stay organized Too much explanation of case arguments – good understanding, but taking too much time, it might be better to develop short 3-5 word explanation / “short tags” for each warrant, that way you can quickly extend each of them Good T block, has all the right component parts, maybe a little bit too long – a lot of these arguments can be made in the 1ar if they extend the argument (they probably won’t) Use THEORY, it is one of the best friends of the 2A. Conditionality bad and States fiat bad are viable 2AR options and, at least, are a positive time trade-off for the Aff. (NVM – you went back later to make the theory argument, good job!!) Take a little bit more prep before the speech begins to get more organized. You can: you only used 2 minutes before the speech began.

2AR
Good order, case first and then the DA. Start with impact calc (case outweighs the DA). Use “even ifs” – “even if they win their argument about eminent domain, it only takes out construction in certain areas, HSR could still be built throughout the country, which is sufficient to sustain the u.s. economy enough to prevent collapse” There, at least, must be some mention of the impacts to the case in the 2AR When you are extending only a couple of arguments to answer a DA, make sure that you develop an argument (say not only the claim, but explain that argument, and explain how that argument subsumes what they have said) Another example of “even if” – “uniqueness overwhelms the link – so, even if they win the florida argument, that isn’t enough to change the outcome of the election – __because__ they haven’t read evidence that says that florida is key __and__ our U overwhelms evidence says __”

1AC
Start at 75% and then build to 100. It gives the judge a chance to adjust to the sound of your voice. You need to work on clarity. Try recording yourself speaking a few times and practicing with over-enunciation. You might try speaking slightly softer when reading the text of evidence, you’re probably a little bit too loud and it ends up wasting a lot of breath (causing you to gasp) and making the speech less clear. If you’re having trouble fitting the 1ac in, take out a card or two. It is worth it if you are able to speak at a more fluid/natural rate. Pause slightly between the end of a card and the next tag. They are getting blurred together. Good job reading pre-empts in the 1ac. You want to anticipate the major negative arguments in advance. Change these based on your opponent’s argumentative tendencies. But, could be removed if you were looking to make reading the 1ac easier.

CX of the 1NC
Decent discussion of the internal link to the DA. Do you have evidence to back up the argument? Maybe try to find a place in the debate that is a little more central

1AR
Prep more during the negative block and pre-debate – you are using too much prep time before the speech Change the order – should be: case, K, das (in order of best to worst) Again, start out 75% - it is impossible to flow the beginning of the speech You need to slow down overall – trying to go faster than what you can reasonably be flowed at – it would also improve your efficiency You should record yourself speaking and then transcribe it (word for word) – you’ll see that there is a lot of inefficiency – statements like “cross-apply”, “at the point which”, “now on to”, “our evidence indicates”, “specifically”, “which talks about how”, etc. are bad habits that you can work to eliminate Elections is not “Obama good”. “Obama good” refers to the agenda politics DA. Work off the 2ac structure – the first thing you say should be “extend __”, where the blank refers to a 2ac argument. Use this structure until you get very familiar and can then move to implicit clash Pick a few places and read new evidence – this is a key part of argument development over the course of a debate Work on coverage – spent too much time on the case – as a result, you weren’t able to extend nearly as many arguments on the K as you would have liked – you are speaking fast but spinning your wheels a lot and not extending as many arguments as you should Try to prompt the 2ar as little as possible. 90% of the prompting in this debate should be eliminated

CX of the 1AC
Which solvency arguments are you attempting to set-up? Try writing out a few questions during the 1AC. That should prevent you from losing your train of thought midway through the CX.

2NC
No need to kick out of T. there’s nothing that can be cross-applied. Start politics with impact calculus – always begin with “disad outweighs the case: _”, fill in the blank with things like magnitude, timeframe, probability, turns the case Do line-by-line by saying “they say, but __”: “they say magnitsky, but PC overcomes this [card]” Good impact additions at the bottom of JV --- make it outweigh the case Call it “political capital”, not “poli-cap”. Just trust me. Say “scratch that card”, not “clip that card”. Clipping brings up negative connotations of cheating. Change your model of extending evidence: claim, warrant cite. “Extend that the aff can’t solve, the instrumental model fails, only communicative rationality can gather necessary information to make policymaking effective – that’s Wilson” The k might be more persuasive if you found some interesting ways to package it – “the k agrees with nearly all of the case – yes, high speed rail should be built, yes it would be advantageous, no it should not be done through a top down model – they have no defense of the PROCESS of the aff” – for example Work on efficiency – statemnts like “our Wilson evidence specifically says” don’t add anything – see above model of argument extension I’m not a big fan of the block division – giving elections and all of the case to the 1nr seems like too much and a recipe for undercovering – the 2nc had time to take a little bit more

2NR
Don’t have a global overview – start with your primary offensive argument – and do impact calc there. That is the “overview’ reason why the judge would vote neg – because the DA outweighs Why aren’t you going for the K? the 1ar undercovered it significantly – only extending the perm/double-bind – at the very least, you did extend it as a case turn – so go for it The overview is way to “preview-y” – a bunch of stuff that you are going to do later – its repetitive – because you are going to get there later … and it is too long (over 1.5mins) Too much explaination – the 2nr is a pressure speech – put your head down and extend a lot of claims and warrants – don’t say “they don’t answer this coming out of the “ --- not necessary/inefficient Work to eliminate wasteful phrases: “which specifically says”, “lets go to the”, etc. Change the order: do off-case arguments before the case –if you don’t extend every case argument, that is OK (the da can still outweigh), but if you don’t extend the DA fully, you automatically lose because you will have only extended defensive arguments You are dropping some arguments that were extended on Politics (heg solves, magnitsky, etc.) Pare down in the 2nr: explicitly kick the K, go for only one of the two Das, it is too difficult to extend both

1NC
Label each off-case argument. Say “next off is ”. For example: “topicality”, “politics”, “critique”. It helps keep everyone on the same page. Be careful reading both agenda politics and elections in the same 1nc – you can do it, but there is a lot of interaction between the pages Good speaking style and fluidity Consider adding a CP to the 1nc – states should be a major fear of the aff – even if you don’t want to go for it in the 2nr, there are strategic benefits to having it earlier in the debate Don’t end the speech early – always have extra evidence available – just start reading it – something (even if not highlighted) is better than nothing

CX of the 2AC
Focus on the argument that you will be taking in the 1nr – ask questions about each of their pieces of evidence, if necessary – should be able to fill up the entirety of the time

1NR
Start with impact calc – see notes on this in mark’s section Use the phrase “prefer our evidence” – one way to do this is to cite the qualifications of Silver, who is recognized as an industry leader in election prediction and has been extremely accurate in estimates of previous elections Da turns the case – iran strikes would mess up all of the aff’s goals Use a different model for extending case arugments in the block: “Extend (claim)” Extend “eminent domain blocks”, then warrant, “the government wont be able to take land necessary to build high speed rail”. Develop that argument further “this means zero solvency: private lands will block any long-range travel necessary to revitalize the economy” reference the cite “that’s Smith”. Develop further “fiat doesn’t solve …”, then develop further by reading more evidence “and, eminent domain is a HUGE issue, affecting EVERY area --- smith 10”. Too many arguments are being extending but not being properly developed such that they could actually take out a significant portion of the case.

2AC
2AC order should be: T, case, CP/K, DAs in order of best to worst. Don’t read evidence on case on issues where there is 1ac evidence. First extend / explain your 1ac evidence. It is too slow / difficult to cover if you read a lot of evidence here. You read 6 cards – that would be a lot of coverage of the das/k … Pretty good speaking style. Get in the habit of doing some reading every day in order to increase speed. Make sure that you integrate arguments made in the CX into the speech – the question about internal link to the DA (“why would Obama win for striking iran”) was a focus, for example Good T block – can revise the arguments / edit down for efficiency though – just make claims, no need for extensive explanation

CX of 2NC
Avoid asking questions about intrinsicness – we will have a politics theory discussion later – but this isn’t helpful because it seems like none of the debaters are familiar with what the argument is Organize / write down your thoughts before the CX begins – it will allow you to be more focused and to avoid being repetitive/stumbly Ok arguments about the K – force the neg to be more specific – in what ways is the aff instrumental? What ways does this make HIGH SPEED RAIL counterproductive – why about the AFF’s proposal will fail because it isn’t bottom up. What does bottom up mean in the context of HSR – would it change the way that the aff is implemented? If so, you can make solvency deficits based on the difference between the two

2AR
Prep as much as you can during 2nr prep time if you know that you have only a little bit of time remaining Order: say the exact order of case pages, not “1nc order”, “1ac order”, or just generally “case” Start with impact calc – why does the case outweigh You don’t need to cross apply the JV econ impact – the 1ac read an econ advantage that was never contested at the impact level Pretty good attempt at line-by-line – seems like the issue that you could use help with are a) flowing (to make sure that you know all of the arguments in the debate and b) familiarity with the aff (so you can quickly explain your answers to their arguments) The case is taking you too much time – you wont be able to cover 2 das and do what you want on the K Only make arguments in the 2ar that you fully understand – don’t just do what your partner tells you to – it must make sense to you Good arguments on Jackson vanik, explain the warrants in your evidence

1AC
Some of the 1ac tags could be clearer. Try to start out a bit slower and build speed as the speech progresses. Work on the efficiency of reading cites. You currently said either “this is Williams 9” or “that’s Williams 9”. Eliminate the “this is” or “that’s” – just read the cite and then name/date. You shouldn’t be marking cards in the 1ac. If you think it is too long, take out some whole pieces of evidence. Good candidates for removal are extra impact modules – “general aviation good”, “air pollution”, etc. Seems like some cards in the 1AC could be highlighted down a bit further (without sacrificing warrants).

CX of the 1NC
Rephrase the question of “what affs do you lose under your interpretations” to be “what ground do you lose under this interpretation” It is a good idea to stand closer to the judge than your opponent (because of subtle persuasive effects), but you should try not to stand in FRONT of them – move a little bit over to the side

1AR
Change the order – (almost) always do the counterplan before politics. If you drop/undercover the DA, the case can outweigh – if you drop/undercover the CP and it solves all the case – that’s big trouble Put your flows up by your computer when speaking – it allows you to stand-up straighter – makes breathing easier, allows you to look at judge, and makes speaking seem more natural Identify and extend unique internal links in the 1ac – ATC __reliability__ was never answered by the neg and is independent of congestion, general aviation accesses the economy even if there is no impact to food, etc. Turn your computer to an angle when speaking – that way you can both look at the judge and look at your evidence at the same time – you don’t want your sound to be muffled because you are speaking directly into the computer Good job answering their impact calc You can be more brief / explain less when extending the warrant for uniqueness evidence in the 1ar. Say ‘extend won’t pass – no support – not bipart “ instead of a long explanation of why that is the case – you don’t have time to say more and it is an argument that every judge will allow your team to make in the 2AR. Never spend time on an argument in the debate that you can make later on without penalty.

2AC
Order looks good. Would be useful to write a few case blocks---i.e. “plan solves congestion a) less spacing b) efficient flight paths c) reduces delays and flight circling” – could be read in many places Try to work on implicit clash – there is a lot of time being spend on case in the 2ar repeating their claims For T, there is a very good card in the Topicality file defending that PPP’s are “federal investment”, either add it to the 2ac block or make the argument in the 2AC and read that evidence in the 1AR On T primary purpose – read a couple cards saying that the aff meets – then move on – aviation affs are topical Have a theory argument against the K that says “neg can’t advocate the plan” – you don’t want them to be able to defend increasing nextgen but “consulting stakeholders more along the way” – if so, a lot of your best offense (alt fails, case outweighs) won’t apply Privitization CP: the best solvency deficit is not only loan guarantees key, but really “nextgen key” – airports can be more efficient and driven by profit motives – but won’t be able to keep up with demand without modernizing ATC. The only way to modernize is for airlines to equip the necessary technology.

2AR
Start with “they conceded famine – it outweighs – magnitude” – then do traditional impact calc. good decision to begin here and make a connection – but you spent too much time here If you are going to extend a solvency deficit – make sure that you trace it through the 1ar. The 2nr accused the 1ar of not extending a solvency deficit – so you need to disprove that. “we extended a solvency deficit – they must have missed it. The 2ac said ______. The 1ar extended it when they say ______ right after (another argument). They messed up by dropping it” You might want to go for conditionality … if you don’t think there was a solvency deficit in the 1ar. It is hard to take out 100% of the DA based just on link uniqueness if you haven’t contested top level U (will pass/wont pass) You’re getting a little out of order – start politics by answering their impact calc, then extend arguments in order Good decision to focus on the link argument – even if they win ATC reform is controversial, loan guarantees are a popular mechanism …

CX of the 1AC
Pretty good logical questions about solvency. I’d ask a couple of follow-ups for each --- instead of saying “that’s fine”, I would press on if you don’t get a satisfactory answer from the Aff --- if you have them on the ropes, don’t let up.

2NC
Change the order. Put the case on the bottom. The reason is that it is hard to __exactly__ time your speech. You might not be able to cover the last argument or two – if that happens with case, you only lose one argument. If that happens on an off-case argument, you need to have your partner do it in the 1NR. Great extension of case arguments, good implicit clash/comparison, great indicts of the warrants of their evidence You sound really good because it is clear that you know what you’re talking about. One thing to work on is breathing – you seem to have to take breaths pretty often, work on taking __deeper__ breaths when you do – with the idea that you will have to breath less often. Also, it might sorta be breathing out of habit when you don’t actually need it – so, be aware On the environment – make a comparative argument about the THRESHOLD for the advantage – the aff has to win that they decisively decrease emissions from aviation because a) its only a small part of all emissions b) the rate of warming is so fast right now that there has to be a big reversal in emissions to solve. You can use evidence from both teams for this – use ev that other transportation sectors are bigger and use the aff evidence that says warming will be rapid now to make the “uniqueness overwhelms” component of the argument CP: the key to solvency is proving that reformed ATC can solve even in situations where the airlines don’t equip NextGen tech – so, cite non-NextGen ways to reduce congestion (there could be fewer flights, less partially full flights, etc. Be careful saying “their card is out of context” – that specific phrase brings up a lot of negative connotations associated with cheating – which I’m sure you don’t meant to imply. Instead, say “their evidence doesn’t apply, it is about _________, not ___________” Good job preempting likely 1AR arguments – shows that you are aware of where the debate is likely to go. Big Picture skills are good!

2NR
Order is OK, I would consider putting politics before the CP – reason is that it is rhetorically stronger to begin the substantive part of the speech with your central piece of offense Conditionality: do impact calc here. Compare relevant theory impacts (education v fairness). House your defense to time skews in one location. Offense/defense framing on the CP is good, assuming that you chose to start this way because they underexplained the solvency deficit in the 1AR Before moving on from the CP, you should extend some of the warrants for privatization as solvency takeouts to the aff – demand management is specific to NextGen, plus there are a wave of bureaucracy/efficiency related arguments that say that federal ATC structurally fails. Accuse the aff of dropping these and say they take out 100% of the case and mean that only the CP solvency Good impact calc on the DA, excellent start, solid comparative arguments Include some case arguments in the speech – say that if the aff proves the CP isn’t competitive or the perm solve the links to politics the judge should revert to the status quo and politics outweighs – then focus mostly on the econ impact defense – which was a) a place where the 1ar was light b) helps with your comparative impact calc on politics

1NC
“5 off, then aviation, then environment” is the correct way to say the order. Say the actual advantage names instead of “advantage 1” and “advantage 2” – it is clearer that way You are pretty fast and clear – but there’s a difference between the way that you read the text of evidence and read tags. For some people, it is good to be slower/extra clear on tags so they can flow. I actually think you that you are clear enough that you can read EVERYTHING the way you read the text of ev. This would make you a bit faster. (this is a pretty big compliment – very few people can do this). T-transportation is OK, but probably not the greatest argument against the NextGen Aff (it meets – because aviation has the primary purpose of moving goods/people Good integration of analytical arguments from CX into the speech. Keep doing this!

CX of the 2AC
Try to be a bit more focused. Ask questions about the argument that you will be taking in the 1NR. Try to come up with a press/indict of each piece of evidence they read, if you don’t have a better question/argument in mind.

1NR
Start with impact calc. you don’t need to explain the story with a usual DA like politics Good impact work at the top of the DA. You’re reading a lot of cards (which is good), but you don’t necessary have to – you can make some of the arguments – probability / timeframe / turns case – analytically When you’re reading a wall of uniqueness cards – try to make the tags a bit more efficient – start with “jv repeal will pass – bipartisanship – that’s smith – more reasons: momentum – xxx, obama’s pushing – xxx, most recent evidence --- xxx” – you don’t need to repeat the claim, if several cards share the same claim, you can shorten the tag to just be the warrant Good line-by-line. Flowing drills paying off! Good impact module additions – heg is a fine one – maybe read a card that heg turns the case (solves econ, environment, food, etc.) Overall, really solid block. Emphasized depth over breadth/tech – that’s cool.