2010+KL+Comments+from+Clash+Drills+and+Practice+Debates

toc =Conditionality Clash Drills Notes= =2AC Notes=

__Sheryar__
Best Policy Option may not be something you wanna say in the 2ac – save it for the 1ar – wait for them to say best policy options in the block, and you say OKAY – intrinsic permutations are okay in the 1ar Whereas if you say it in the 2ac, then they’re answers in the block will be far more focused Wait for them to screw themselves in the block

Need to cut out a little bit, since this is too long right now Probably don’t wanna take out more words in each individual arg since otherwise only tag words, but pick and choose arguments is probably easier to shorten it - Keep #4 – justifies multiple CP’s bad - Eliminate #3 – you should be unconditional - Eliminate #2 as well One GOOD thing is that he had a smart label at the beginning – it summarizes that argument; the more unique you can make it, it is better –because just by saying those 3-5 words, you have then extended it because you use the same language Also easy for flowing, way easier I **really** like the way Sheriar hard-numbered his arguments – it FORCES the judge to write down everything after a judge – in the case of arguments like this, condo good bad would be a # on the 2ac, so make them letters Start off with condo good or bad in the beginning You should say voting issue; some judges care about that; tell them stick them to the CP or reject the team, etc

__Giovanni__
I like that he includes a **very** important argument – that the **debaters are advocates rather than policy-makers** – that is crucial; have in the 2AC Counter-interpretations are not necessary – just say unconditional – don’t say it explicitly in the 2AC, wait and here what they say in the 2NC Your #1 and #3 are the same – why are they bad except for the same reasons; honestly just read the 1 and the 2 – that itself is fine

__Elissa__
Combine shallow debate with infinite regression – #1 and #2 You also don’t need the substructure for a and b within shallow debate – you can later develop why all the reasons they cause substructure
 * 1) 4 and #5 are the same, too – best policy option argument is a no advocacy-skills argument; also, DON’T USE THE LANGUAGE OF **BEST POLICY OPTION** as a 2ac on the aff – just make the advocacy skills arg cuz the neg will have better claims to this arg

=2NC Notes=

__Alec__
Start numbering from the VERY BEGINNING – number **everything** ; have them written out on your blocks, and actually PUNCH the numbers when you say it USE LETTERS not numbers for individual sub-points Maybe want to combine B and C – same impact – advocacy skills

__Alex__
Number properly Say why there’s a functional limit on CP’s – cannot contradict ourselves with DA’s, they need net benefits, they can be permuted, etc – there’s not going to be a MILLION CP’s Every argument EXCEPT Conditionality you should say reject the arg not the team; but for conditionality, you should say if they win condo they get to stick us with the CP Logical policymaker is not about real world – the logical question comes into play because you would never vote for the plan if it was worse than the status quo just because the CP was a bad idea Don’t say this is what congress people do because it has no impact – the purpose of debate is to promote better decisionmaking, not to mimic congress; logically it makes no sense to make a bad decision; don’t vote to make the squo worse, which is why the squo should always be an option

__Taylor__
Last couple arguments are excellent NUMBER EVERYTHING – the last 2 args blended together The first argument – emphasize WHY is it important that the status quo is always an option – emphasize that it is key to good decisionmaking DON’T label offense/defense; just put offense near the top and go for it

__Varun__
DUDE WATCH SOME SESAME STREET – NUMBER PROPERLY; just number it STRAIGHT DOWN – you are clashing by saying just the opposite, you don’t have to number it in accordance with the 2ac scheme

=1AR Notes= 2 types of 1AR’s on theory 1. I’ve already said everything I need to, and I’m just doing this to screw with the 2NR – write out a pre-written block with like 10 points that answers everything they say 2. we’re losing everything, we need to go for theory, so im going to set up the 2AR that makes sure they answer EVERYTHING the neg says totally – debating the line by line

__Annalise__
You’re not actually making a logical decision that if because the debate is so spread out, you don’t have enough information – it’s not logical decisions, it promotes decision based on whatever the aff doesn’t have enough time Also – you’re an advocate/advocacy skills, not a policymaker. This also answers their logical policymaking argument. Put this AT THE TOP – if you win this, you control the education debate In 1AR, cross out #4 because #5 is a better version The reciprocal standard and the neg block argument are slightly contradictory -- recirprocity is probably not a good standard to begin with, just roll with they have plenty of advantages, they don't need condo to catch up Plus the can run 10 CP's with the same net benefit - politics ALONE - and a bunch of process CP's Use your neg is okay arguments to answer condo justified/abuse claims

__Michael__
When you're aff in theory debates, you have to convince the judge that debate becomes IMPOSSIBLE with this You need to have the FIYAR - you have a baby seal and they're clubbing you're baby seal; they've done something so wrong they're losing the debate; be more angry I like how Michael extends the MOST important argument at the top - that's absolutely true

__Jonathan__
Never go your top speed in a debate - it's not your most efficient speed; when you do drills, practice increasing your top speed - especially when you start out start out a little slowly Add in a breadth versus depth claims - you're using the advocacy skills well against education claims, just make it explicit for why focusing in on one thing is good; i mean there's not much time in a debate - make an arg for why there's barely enough time in a debate to fully compare 2 diff policy worlds; addint more = shallower education Say advocacy skills key change the FIRST TIME - not the third time This was a good speech in so far as you don't have to make 5 arguments for every 1 argument to bury them, he got right to the point - just make the necessary arguments You may want to have more if this is the 'i'm going to lose on everything' debate.

=2NR Notes=

Most effective 2NR start out by framing the debate and creating a HIGH threshold for theory -- something at the top that emphasizes having a high threshold, why that's good, and what the judge can do instead -- i.e. stick them with the CP. E.G.) They prove what we did makes debate hard - debate is supposed to be hard it's what makes debate fun and educational - in order for them to win this debate, they have to prove we make debating as teh aff IMPOSSIBLE) It's like reasonability for the neg You need to put the doubt in the judge's mind that the aff claims are not viewed with certainty - does it really make it impossible is teh question that should be in the judge's mind.

Reasons why policymakers o/w advocates 1) Why should we be advocates to a BAD policy that makes status quo worse 2) Even advocates need to weigh for advocacy - logic is used to determine effective advocacy; more logic = better advocates - logical decision making model solves both of your impacts 3) People test from multiple angles in real life - conservatives and liberals - makes the AFF more effective advocates 4) You still get advocacy stills - in the 2NR you advocate something, that's the speech you're developing advocacy skills 5) LOGIC IS JUST MORE IMPORTANT - it will effect us a lot more - many debaters won't be advocates/in decisions of power, but we all need to make logical decisions in everyday life

__Angela__
It's not bad to be efficient - as a 2NR you don't have much time. You need to argue more against their advocacy skills argument which is the CORE off the aff - you need to refute advocacy o/w - it is THE thing that makes or breaks conditionality debates- you need to counter with comparisons of your own. Beginning and the end are the same - only one of those places is that necessary; I would add in with that time that you save a reason why it's bad to vote on theory with a low threshold. - Otherwise EVERYTHING is a voting issue - we never get to substance VERY similar to reasonability on theory.

__Helen__
Don't put the defensive args on top - not as convincing as starting out with the offensive arguments. You should start talking about how the debate should be framed - one of those being logical policy maker versus advocacy, and the other is the threshold - as long as you start with ONE of those questions, it's good. Say explicitly stick us with the CP - 1 caveat: make sure you actually are winning the CP and can win if you get stuck w/it You still need more about why advocacy doesn't O/W logical policy-making; move the education stuff to the top and compare it to their advocacy skills stuff and then roll into the rest of your arguments Even if they're right that we make arguments less developed, well they have the last speech which allows them to focus in on 2ar which we don't have; also, condo is key to test the policy from multiple angles -- this is a better answer to their breadth v.s. depth

__Parth__
STOP SAYING YOUR 2NR IS BAD BEFORE IT BEGINS Good thing you made some args for why logical policy making o/w - MAKE ELISA'S ARG - if we advocate bad policies, we are bad advocates, or if we advocate BADLY we're still bad advocates It's a GREAT 1st half on theory - you isolate all the important parts, you just need to have the second half which is answering the specific 1AR arguments - you provided the overview You need Kentucky's line by line.

__Kentucky__
Comparing Neg Flex to advocacy skills is not the best comparison for you - logic really needs to be extended explicitly here; this is not the kind of arg that can be somewhat there, it is SO OVERWHELMINGLY important - it has to be the central argument The line by line was excellent - you answered everything they said, you just need Parth's explanation of why logic o/w.

=2AR Notes=

__Zach__
Really good job answering all the arguments in the line by line, you need something at the top in which you convince the judge they are DESTROYING debate; you have ALL THE TIME in teh world - gaze into the judge's eyes and convince them that the neg is the death of the debate as we know it You need the thing at the top that gets it at the threshold I like aff flex o/w neg flex - those sorts of comparisons are excellent Flesh out advocacy argument; happen at the top of the debate - put some impact calculus E.G.) 1. Key to know how to advocate - they're argument that we're not all going to be advocates is NOT true - we do advocate things day to day life, at least advocates for ourselves 2. Not realistic to say we can consider every possible option w/in 1 debate round - trying to consider all at once = we do nothing well - if you win your depth arguments, it takes out their solvency for logical policy making Depth argument is crucial to win here - it helps you much more 3. Viewing it in terms of advocacy doesn't make you illogical - you can understand the squo is a better option than both, but at the same time vote for the aff because they did better debating, and the neg chose to advocate a CP so they should be stuck to that - otherwise it would be illogical to vote for the WORSE advocate cuz they didn't do a good job advocating it

__Jake__
This is the Parth version of the 2AR - this is a WONDERFUL overview; in the line by line you didn't answer everything you needed to though - you need to combine that with the line by line

__Shannon__
All the clash you give is embedded clash - which is PERFECT for the 1ar, but NOT for the 2ar; good arguments, but you need to say they say/but - in the 2ar, it's the 1 speech where it may be good to repeat things if it's an actual critical argument to ensure the judge GETS IT. If you've only said it once in the 2ar and you need it to win the debate, not enough. Don't lose sight of your own arguments in the 2AR - you didn't say the original argument that they allow MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of CP that destroys debate. Have both of those in the 2AR.

=Evidence Clash Drills=

Parth
Don’t say Turkey is more vulnerable because it’s closer to the Middle East – go with your second argument that Turkish TNW’s aren’t kept in safety, OR the PKK is trying to steal it – they’re in Turkey, so more vulnerable.

Don’t fetishize offense – remember your best offense as the aff is case, so focus on making **good** arguments versus bad offense. That’s more threatening to the negative.

Good extension of your Sid-Ahmed impact. I like that you went line-by-line on the case – that’s awesome/crucial. Don’t group shit on the case.

Be careful though – the neg arg is that terrorists don’t have the means or motive; so saying a failed attack = extinction isn’t responsive if they don’t attack at all

DA – Turkey will only proliferate if Iran does – this isn’t complete w/out an explanation of whether Iran will proliferate now; a better tag is saying something like Iranian policies determine Turkey prolif not US security policies Rearrange the arguments so it’s not ALL analyticals or ALL cards – mix of both is good.

It’s good to point out flaws on the neg evidence as well.

Save minor ev comparison notes for the rebuttal – if there’s a HUGE problem with the evidence, then point it out in the constructive.

Annalise
When you extend evidence make sure you say label BEFORE you just say the card name – it’s more important for the judge to have the argument flowed rather than the card. Put it write after your label or at the end of the argument.

**Helen**
Don’t just say #1 – say label as well; say ‘they say’ Be a lttle louder and punch-ier in cards for transitions Move laptop out of the way of your mouth – otherwise you speak into your laptop and we can’t here Set up the uniqueness issue in C-X – you don’t have to re-underline their uniqueness Good killer instinct on burying the DA

**Kentucky**
Extend the argument NOT just Christiansen!

**Zofia**
Do the THEY SAY CASE O/W BUT – make it clear where exactly you’re trying to answer it If you don’t’ understand an argument, at least ask after the 2AC – or say it doesn’t make sense because this is what our disad is Take advantage of the external impact you have to the DA more so; Middle eastern prolif has no defense against the 2AC It’s a good argument to say Turkey would proliferate more and faster because they have means and scientists to do so – greater probability of the I/L – that’s **really** good

**Zach**
Give an example of what states terrorist could have access to You shouldn’t fall into their ev labeling pattern – if they label it as just Christiansen and you refute it based on an argument, it’s even more to your advantage You did a good job of going line by line for the stuff you did do; do that ALL the time – use prep time/C-X time if you need to figure out what their arguments were On case you did a little bit of the opposite – you answered their args well, but you didn’t extend your arg Read another Link card or 2 to establish that Turkish prolif is really the key warrant here, not anything else For Iran, read cards about US credibility

**Taylor**
Reading US credibility on the Iran arg key solving Turkish prolif and another specific Turkish prolif link – that’s what’s necessary; a couple more specific links would help

Just extend 1 or 2 case arguments – you need to explain stuff – it has to be crystal clear by the end of the block; so when you extend it make it winnable Answer each of their arguments comprehensively – WIN 1 case arg versus just extending several of them

=Topicality Clash Drills=

1NC Zofia
- Have a limits standard – if squo is always a policy option, it doubles the size of the topic - Prove baseline w/a card on SOFA is policy now, or it’s binding, etc

2AC Zach
- C-Interp wasn’t carded, could be bad - Don’t just say competing interps bad, say why reasonability is *good* - Don’t say T is not a voter - Explain why T should have a higher threshold – encourages 2NR to forsake substance, easy cheapshot T  - You need to prove SOFA is not binding, we have no intention of following, not official law, etc – that’s essentially a WM arg - Extension of 1AC that says we’ll break guideline now, so plan is a reduction from the squo

Argue what constitutes a baseline – squo laws or squo informal practices, etc; neg should include the mixing burdens argument

1NC Jake
- 1NC was pretty good - You don’t need to use Xtra T – that’s obvious that’s Extra; save it for the block - Need a card that is EXCLUSIVE of the aff in the 1NC

2AC Alex
- C-interp is probably not best – your ev doesn’t say anything about being quantifiable - The argument itself is not quantifiable - That card seems a WM – contextual ev proves we’re topical – rather than a C-interp; no intent to define - Standards debating is pretty good but establish why they O/L; need to argue that the troops aff doesn’t allow flexibility – only 1 aff per country; any other aff can just be solved by the strategy change; destroys aff; Turkey, Kuwait and N. Korea affs wouldn’t function in this fwk - PAGE 95 OF DDI T FILE – good C-INTERP

2NC Taylor
- adapt the arbitrary argument that Taylor made to apply from reasonability of the WM to instead to the C-interp - can't compare which interp is better without competing interpretations - encourages judge interventions!! - BASH THE C-INTERPRETATION MORE!!! THAT CARD STINKS - explained limits argument really well - develop how many weapon systems there are, that factorial = TONS OF CASES YO - Listing arg is a good arg to make on the no ground loss arg - give them specific examples of what you give whereas what they do is totally unfair/uneducational/unreasonable - Make an arg for why your standards arguments answers the reasonability because they're NOT resonable - Do sme imapct defense on predictability, breadth v. depth - why limits is key and such

1AR Parth
- 1AR - you don't have time to say they say; group x part of the debate - DON'T reference their arguments - you should do embedded clash; save tons of time - Spend too much time on the WM; contextuality doesn't apply as much here - both sources not fantastic - Probably worth going for the wm - go to their spsecific lists and prove why you meet that - Get to C-Interp with more time so you can do more analysis; having a 1AR block can be really helpful

2NR Kentucky
- Slow down, talk to the judge, and actually CONVINCE THEM - talk to them - you have way more time which is crucial; almost liek you get the advnatage of a 2AR - You did a really good job of answering 1AR args - but extend your interps/arguments too! if you just clash with what they say, you don't extend your most important offense - Limits is the MOST important thing - explain why you access the impact calc/i/L to their standards better USING limits

2AR Michael
- Good case list at the very top -it helps make the 2AR convincing; you should be creative about where you insert this new argument - Reasonability should always be extended - like impact calculus for T - Good limits answers- generic CP/strat that these affs cannot beat plus the substantially checks arguments are awesome - MORE WORK ON TEH WM - especially given teh quality of the 1NC evidence - It is still ambiguous what the C-Interp is still; that is crucial to explain on the aff - the card that Parth read is awesome - CP to change strategy but keeps troosp also devestates your naval training example - Talk about why there's only 1 Aff per country - you allow at least some flexibility - Explain WHY reasonability is not that arbitrary - reasonability to a certain extend is inevitable - Judge intervention on the case of topicality is not that bad - they have a stake in maintaining a good topic; they've seen a lot of topics and they have a better idea of what some args will do to some topics - Competing interps is just as arbitrary

1NC Giovanni
- Don't wanna talk about creativity because the C-Interp may access a bigger topic, allow affs to be more creative with new affs - Talk about why they unlimit the topic - that's crucial

2AC Shannon
- number a little more clearly to differentiate a little bit more - I like the fact that she's willing to not make a we meet; shows maturity - Iraq/Afghanistan - combine into one argument - both critical cases; in addition to being 2 largest, say they're the most education - most key elements of US foreign policy at the moment - Say that groudn cant be a standard - all cases they have to be prepared for under their interp - your affs SUPERCHARGE the link - make this into a limits arg - the links are the same or better cuz you're withdrawing the troops that actually matter