Wednesday, December 3, 2008

East Lansing FL v. Stratford FM, Round 7 GBN

--Your vocal pattern follows a very predictable pattern that's both determinate and completely divorced from every meaning. I'd call it an "intonation template" or, perhaps more accurately, a Procrustean bed. Abandon that template. Intonation conveys meaning, whereas a robotic template's entirely self-referential. Debate, ideally, is just like normal speech intonation-wise, albeit exaggerated and much much faster.

--You need slight pauses between different contentions and cards. These small vocal bookends really aid comprehension.

1A - When he questions a card, don't just abandon it. You immediately cede his arguments and bring in new cards, fleeing the perceptual high ground.
2N - You're very efficient in the CX. That helps. Your transitions and section introductions ("now let's talk about [issue x]) are probably unnecessarily verbose, though.

I'm not a big fan of Heidegger, because I don't think it really disproves the aff's truth value - it exposes a philosophical assumption, but not a premise of their internal link chain.

Capitalism is probably more relevant. I appreciate that you read an impact framing card - I'd prefer that Mezeros [sp?] card that provides a reason to reject short-term crises in favor of structural analysis. I always find that very helpful for resolving cap debates (when I'm voting negative.)

Stylistically, you should probably just get faster - try this. (Be sure to go to advanced settings and check "variability".)

You should also try to avoid rising intonation? because it makes all your statements? sounds like questions? (I do realize that the wiki labels my conception as a 'misconception' here, but I think I'm accurately describing the rhetorical effect in a debate round, even if a linguist would disagree with my broader point.)


1. Near incomprehensible in sections. You have to mark your cards better - you hand over a card with ~15 different marks but actually read the shortest version. It seems quite unfair to not tell the negative which mark you used, when you'd presumably volunteer that information to me readily if I decide to scrutinize your materials.

2. Your framework arguments seem redundant at points - you spend a great deal of time objecting to the legitimacy of their argument, and very little time answering it. You need to spend more time answering their argument and, probably, defending the case.


Very good on T.

You need some clearer explanations of your method on Heidegger - or why your method either precludes a consideration of the aff or disproves their conclusion. I often have trouble answering this question when I'm trying to construct a negative K ballot:

"Yeah, maybe our method's associated with some real bad stuff politically, but how does that mean it's wrong-incorrect as well as wrong-bad?"


Good job. You should be go faster and read some more evidence. I appreciate your devotion to comprehensibility and on point clash - I just think it's a narrow 1NR and they didn't say much - you should be reading 20-25 cards minimum in this speech.

1. Extend the case impacts they DON'T answer.

2. Your T coverage leaves something to be desired. It's about 10 seconds. I think you should have adhered to the classic structure where you cover it on top to make sure you don't drop it. You could only justify this allocation against a violation that was obviously factually incorrect.

Partner communication - 2A - the 1AR asks if he should move on. It's disturbing that he feels compelled to ask - and doubly disturbing that you say "no."


There aren't many ways you can lose. Still, there are some doors you should probably close.

a. Pre-empt new 2AR - you should talk, briefly, about the standard of strict scrutiny I should employ when I try to match the 2ar to the 1ar.

b. Theory on the K - I think they jettisoned all of this. It's their best shot, though, so you might want to paragraph about why T is the most important theoretical impact to cover your bases.

Arbitrariality - word or no? I think not - I think it's arbitrariness.


1. Check back is not a real phrase. Check means the same thing.
2. You have to tie your 2AR carefully to the 1AR and probably pre-empt newness. (this will be the majority of the postround explanation.)

Hunt desperately for some theory you can revive on the K - it may be your only shot.


Time allocation problems force the 1AR to spend about 10 seconds extending three labels. The 2NR really only needs to meet a very minimal burden of extension, as the block already answered the 2AC - the 1AR does nothing to advance the debate. In the absence of some genuinely compelling and incontrovertible fact, my vote's compelled.

A creative 2AR might have revolved around extending and weighing dropped turns on the K, although I doubt I would have allowed it.