Georgetown Debate Practice Round: Kirshon/Bernick Aff v. Thomas/Mittal Neg

1a: Kirshon
2a: Bernick

1n: Thomas
2n: Mittal

1ac: Great clarity and spacing. I can understand every word, which is the litmus test for clarity.

Substantively, I’d consider axing this disease advantage entirely. It doesn’t get you very far strategically – the internal link probably can’t survive a cross-ex, whereas you open yourself up to tactically nasty “intersection” critiques of disease and immigration (we can represent immigration and can represent disease, but the two sets of fears together is a politically volatile combination.

That’s especially true given the dubious quality of the immigration impact. Put simply, the juice is just not worth the squeeze.

Bearden – not my favorite impact for economy.

I’d consider reading qualifications in the 1ac. While this is a controversial proposition, I feel that the process can at least get mileage for the affirmative. I’ll be posting some of my own thoughts on that discussion shortly.

1AC CX: EFFICIENCY! EFFICIENCY! EFFICIENCY! These questions last a really long time and involve multiple subordinate clauses. The 1A should respond to this meandering first question with “what?”

There’s a factual dispute over whether the states can deficit spend. While there’s some variation, they generally can’t.

1NC: Your clarity is good, although some overenunciation drills certainly wouldn’t hurt. I think your transitions between inssues follow the correct template – [short pause – name of new issue – short pause].

You bounce up and down in a strange way. You put your head down – literally – into evidence, creating the impression that you’re about to literally dive into your laptop. While that would be a cool Matrix-y trick if you could actually pull it off, it really only serves to muffle your voice. Work on maintaining some physical distance from your blocks.

You need more net benefits to the states CP, like a spending disad. A diverse 1NC should have at least 3 viable win strats, and I don’t think that [status quo+DA] seems viable in this case.

2AC: Good. Faster. Really. You have a great 2AC, but it’s at about 2/3 or the necessary speed. We’ll work on this outside lab, using some electronic tools. I could have some additional advice, but I want to keep a focus on what we can improve.

2AC C-X: Weird quiz bowl effect here. You start off with this weird question about number of pieces of pizza, or like a train leaving the station at 60 mph or something. In general, I think you can skip the clever analogies in C-X – they’re less illustrative than you think. Just ask your questiona s clearly as possible.

2NC: You allocate a bunch of time to disease defense. I don’t see how this fits into a winning 2NR. You’re dropping three out of four advantages, and they all have extinction level impacts. You’re thus compelled to go for the counterplan. There’s nothing about the disease advantage that’s uniquely insulated from states solvency; health care sector collapse is likely more relevant in a states 2NR. While you’re decent on this advantage on a micro level, I question your macro vision here.

They don’t have a lot of defense on T. I don’t see a great offensive reason to prefer their interpretation. I don’t think that you make enough explicit reference to this, though. It’s mentioned, but it deserves more “airplay” – their lack of offense bears mention in the overview, and potentially on some other places in the debate as well.

Permute this broad interpretation! Social services should be distinguished from BOTH highway spending AND primary care.

2NC CX: Efficiency. Time allocation. You make about 3 arguments in this C-x> Look at JPs cross-x of Nick again; he makes about 6 arguments, which seems ideal, by controlling the pacing and knowing precisely what he wants to extract before moving on.

1NR: Narrow your focus. This 1NR should be all CTBT all the time – you initially declare that you’re going for immigration. You don’t get to it. There are turns on it. This is problematic. It seems, upon further postround discussion, that these turns might just refer back to the case impacts. At a minimum, however, this is a huge perceptual gaffe.

Your overview needs to be clearer. Don’t read overviews, including impact comparison overviews, as if they are cards. It defeats the purpose. You need to look up from the laptop periodically, and also use slight pauses between different components of the overview to effectively chunk information.

1AR: 1. Avoid stand up 1ARs, especially when you aren’t pressed for prep. I understand that you want to create an immediate impression of studliness. Really, though, that extra time checking, thinking, and looking for relationships between arguments is ultimately far more valuable than a minor style point.
2. I’d make an argument for putting T at the bottom. You aren’t particularly top heavy, and the block led me to believe that the 2NR really wants to go for T. It’s their best argument. Putting it at the bottom lets you dump the most time there, and also skews 2NR prep.
3. Kick disease. Come on. These 20 seconds are better spent on T. If it’s case v. disad, you’re going to win, and, as I mentioned previously, disease isn’t especially insulated from states. You’re being reactive here.
4. Try to relate seemingly distinct theory debates to your advantage. If states limits the topic, then there’s no impact to T, setting up a potentially useful 2AR cross-app. The 2AR actually does this, but it’s too new because you didn’t set him in the 1AR.

2NR: You are good on your issue. You need some more rhetorical power, though. Specifically, you open with “um um” and close with “so…yeah.” Starting and finishing strong is crucial to conveying confidence.

I also want a limits endpoint – a concrete impact. Why will their interpretation make the topic terrible? What is the bogeyman or reductio ad absurdum? Compelling last rebuttals on T or theory ground their abstractions in concrete examples of how terrible their opponents’ interpretation will make debate.

I think you need to impact extra-T better because you’re on the wrong side of the link debate. Your definition establishes that there are some medical social services; some portion of the aff would affect these, presumably, even if you severed the non-topical portions.

2AR: I think you’re a bit too talky and a bit slow. I’m often loath to give this advice, because I think your 2AR is GOOD and I also understand that the round’s pretty narrow in scope. I agree with your basic instinct to sit on a few arguments and paragraph; I just think you need to tighten up the pacing just a touch.

Does this ""no med soc services"" come from the 1AR? Either way, you should refer to the 1AR at more points in order to avoid the appearance of newness." A few explicit references or quotes allow you to justify some ambitious extrapolations. Most judges have trouble tracking down new 2AR responses, but T 2ARs – which often extrapolate 5 minutes of analysis from 45 seconds of 1AR extension – are often held to a higher standard.

Deeper discussion of Extra-T. This seems like a really easy way out.

Excellent early debate! Keep up the good work, all.