Goodman,+Benjamin

toc = 6/28/2011 =

- Avoid asking “can you explain X” and stock questions like “what’s your timeframe” - During the 1AC you should be marking cards you want to push them on/questions you want to ask so you aren’t making Julian ask them - You should decide within the first 30 seconds of prep who is taking what (this is something that should also be discussed pre-round), not AFTER you use 2 minutes of prep. - On Condo, you should have a counter interpretation. You also should make an argument that you only have 1 advocacy in the debate - Articulate your words more when reading cards. It will allow you to go faster and be clearer. You were clear enough, but you should be doing speaking drills where you really push yourself to speak faster - You need to work on your line-by-line on offcase positions in the block. You should do a redo/drill where you are given a set of 5-7 2AC arguments and you have to answer them in order. - You need some impact arguments about why your disad outweighs and/or turns the case - Work on organization! Make sure you have all the cards you need BEFORE your speech - Make sure you have enough cards up there with you, bring up extra case cards - Make sure you are flowing – the 1AR didn’t extend condo, but you spend 45 seconds on it - You need to talk about the impacts/why they matter more than the Aff on the DA - The impact analysis you get to at the end about why probability > magnitude is good, but you need this to happen earlier/you need to be more specific about the scenarios. You also need to extend arguments about why they don’t have any probability -

Debate Comments: - Don’t swear in the debates. There’s no good reason to. I personally don’t care, I just think it makes you inefficient, but there are plenty of judges who will dock speaks.

=6/30/2011=

Round 3: Ben and Julian vs. Manoj and Lisa Ben - 1A

Speaking: You are clearly very knowledgeable on the topic already, which is really impressive. The problem stems from using too much debate jargon in place of more complete analysis. I think that if you explained the steps of your argument instead of relying upon i.e. "extend the link" you would make a lot of headway. The other thing is, you are coming out of the gate so fast in your 1AC. This is preventing clarity. The harder you try to be fast, the slower it makes you. If you start slow and clear and work on your breathing techniques, you will naturally become faster. Film yourself speaking. Speaking from experience, it is a very telling exercise. From my perspective, I realized the harder I tried to sound fast, the slower I was going. I think that this might be the case for you as well. Finally, you need to prioritize your speeches. This starts at having a really awesome roadmap and ends when you put your offense at the top of any position you're talking about.

Decorum: In this debate you were very domineering. This could get you into severe trouble down the road. You have no entitlement to Julian's speech time, but you still occupied about 30 percent of it. You shouldn't be talking over him, forcing him to read off your computer or guiding him unnecessarily. I understand partner prompts in the 1AR, they are crucial, but not unless he's about to drop a position and cost you the round. Sit down, take deep breaths and use your prep time more constructively than just yelling at him for his previous speech and his future one. Use the golden rule, would you like someone to be doing that in debate round? I'm guessing no, so chill out bro.

Content: I think you have the right arguments and the correct gut feelings about what is important in the round, which is the best skill for a good 1AR to have. Follow your instinct and with a little adjustment and speed, you've really got something kid.

=7/6/11=

Continually telling Julian to go to case/speed up makes both of you look bad. Say it once, then lay off. Also, let Julian answer CX questions. Start with an overview of the CP, either an explanation and comparison of impacts or a discussion of what the 2ac fucked up and why it matters. Same on the cap k. You are good at making analytical arguments, make sure you don’t get too bogged down in cards. Don’t go back and forth between flows, start on the CP and finish on cap (or vice versa). You seem to be lacking a big picture analysis on both flows. Flow the 1nr. Do not argue with Julian during his speech. Make sure you answer the contradiction argument made by the aff. Your 2nr is very very evidenced centered, try and make it more about arguments. If you are going for evidence take outs, make sure to explain the impacts to them–what does their authors being unqualified mean in context of the rest of the K flow? I think you should start with an overview of the story of the K, and why the K means the aff can’t solve. Don’t yell at Julian to find stuff for you during your speech.

= = = 7/11/2011 =

Alright, awesome debate. If you run out of stuff to say, you can go ahead and sit down. There are way too many IVRs and dumb theory in this round. You are doing a good job but literally half of the 2nr is spent on theory that is covering your butt instead of getting offense on there. You needed to spend more time on T which you only spend about 30 seconds on T which is not enough to win you this round. If you go for T spend at LEAST 4 minutes on it. Then you can you spend the last minutes on complimenting my red shirt.

=7/12/11=

Put more cards in the 1ac, you are ending with over 2 mins left, enough time to read another advantage. You sound really really apathetic in CX, which makes all your answers sound less intelligent and gives the impression you are not enjoying the debate (aka don't care), which doesnt encourage me to vote for you. You need to start the 1ar on case doing some serious reframing after the 2ac/block. I would spend way less time on T than you do–they say barely ANYTHING on it in the 2nc, so just extend your interpretation, one reason it's good, one defensive arg, and move on. On case, I would extend your realism arguments as reasons why the alternative to capitalism doesn't solve, which means that the bloody collapse of the politics impact (with the plan) is the only way to wipe the slate clean. Extend the 1ac's depictions of the world as reasons why a global leader will be needed post collapse (a justification for the plan), otherwise hell will break loose regardless of what economic system we're in. You do a pretty good job on security, you need to be going HARDCORE for the realism stuff on security, cause if you don't win that the rest of your salvation 1ar kind of falls apart.

=7/15/2011=

Ben—What are the arguments you are extending on the case flow? You aren’t really impacting these questions, certainly enough that I could tell you what these scenarios are or how they would matter. Remember that you need to be extending arguments, not evidence. 2NR needs to start out with bigger macro debate, what the hell is going on, why is it a reason to vote neg, etc. Bring out the specific scenarios that relations solve with china, helps to make your evidence more believable, even if you are making them up a bit.