Monday, June 29, 2009

Georgetown Debate Seminar Practice Round Nine

1A B-CHANG 2A RAVEN STOKES 1N DAY 2N THIBEAU

1ac: I don’t know what “the pickle” means. Is this a private joke?

If you're going to roll singularity, make sure that you are well insulated. I mean, I think the possibility of impact turns (and size of the impact) demand a more total 1AC commitment. The ideal structure should be inevitability warrant – warrant diversity depth of at least three – link, link – then 2-3 distinctions between different methods of transition. Democratic participation becomes a transition distinction instead of a discrete advantage. It’s potentially crucial that the US wins the race before rogue states, and it might be important that a public instead of corporate entity programs the top-level goals of the AI – a top level corporate goal might quickly destroy the biosphere.

Also, massive inevitable technological development makes solving poverty an extinction-level priority.I assure you that, in the context of this aff, you MUST read this card: http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2006/03/technology-and-terror.html.

That’s not REALLY what this aff needs, though, as interesting a tangent as it might be.

This aff needs to be structured around tight defense of the mechanism through signal advantages. “Federal key” is a concern – “Linkup key” is potentially a bigger concern. I’m going to continue tweaking this and reporting on it on the Google group throughout the summer. I heard there’s an Africa modeling advantage being turned out at Michigan – that might be one solution.

“Other stuff” is not a good contention label.

1NC: Clarity! This speech is a testament to the value of some practice speaking before rounds. Clarity problems in the first three minutes, steady upward progress from the 5 minute mark on. Very clear second half.

Good argument diversity. T, for instance, achieves a really positive time tradeoff.

1NC CX:

Great CX.

Ben, I think you need to have a mental roadmap. You seem to get bogged down in tangents. Make it a goal to have about 4-5 arguments going into the C-X, with a clear endpoint for each one.

Don’t say “that’s fine” before moving on. It’s not fine! Their argument is bad. Don’t be passive-aggressive. Be aggressive-aggressive by making your closing arg (“so you don’t have an actual link”) – and seamlessly eliding it with the next question.

2AC:

Fantastic speech! Great allocation and pacing. I guess my major criticism is really just substantive, not stylistic. You need better a/t this counterplan.

I also think you read too many cards on this “eligibility criteria” counterinterp. They’re gonna just perm it – it’s not mutually exclusive. A card saying that it’s really predictable doesn’t do much for you – if the round changes such that it becomes really relevant, the 1AR can read the card.

2NC: Good job on the shadow coverage of the T violation. It’s ideal shadow coverage, because you’re making a strong argument – you just correctly diagnose that you don’t need much vertical depth here. While you made the right decision in the 2NR, T was actually not unwinnable after 2 minutes of block coverage.

Great job on politics; feels like we’ve been here before.

CX: Hmmm, chippy.

1NR: Some déjà vu here as well. I’ll mute my previous criticism, though – I understand why you’re going for the defensive counterplan (you clearly cut all the evidence and mastered the subject) and a more diverse 2NC means that the 2NR can avoid hell. I’ll still maintain that an industry specific DA takes this 1NR from excellent to standalone devastating, but that’s a research question.

1AR: Great micro. I don’t have any efficiency suggestions per se, as micro efficiency improvements would make you very difficult to flow. You’ve also made big strides in clarity.

However, you do end up top heavy and underallocating on politics. I think you have to kick some advantages to get the 30-45 you need. You don’t read 5 disads to extend each one in the block– the same principle should apply to diverse advantage menus.

I really do understand every argument as it’s being made – intellectually as well as verbally. That deserves high praise (because I am deaf and stupid! Hahaha jk, sort of)

If you can’t kick down, you have to find time elsewhere, and I think all the options present real dangers. Really, you might be in a bad place because of argument problems – absent better federal key warrants/mechanism defense, you’re going to have consistent problems covering because you can’t take the CP lightly. I’m loath to recommend options such as “go for theory” or “dare them to go for T” – but if you really can’t cover this block, that’s a better macrostrategy than undercovering 2NC politics bombs.

2NR: Great job. I really clearly understand some overarching themes that organize risk analysis. Instead of picking at the speech, I want to underline its difference from the previous speeches. It maintains technical excellence while finding 3-4 places to paragraph a bit more on the explanation, and I think that’s just crucial. Some block diversity allows the 2NR the luxury of more communicative moments.

2AR: I think this is a really good speech. I think you need to spend more time on the states CP. As there’s no offense on politics, you have concentrate on securing your offense first. When you do get there with a minute left, you must maximize efficiency instead of falling back into a few bad old habits (second person +flow talk – you extend our argument…) This could be a pretty crucial nexus point for the debate.

3 comments:

allen said...

this isn't really a comment on this debate, but in several ballots you noted how well your speaking drills were affecting the debaters' clarity. could you clarify - what "different" or innovative speaking techniques did you introduce to debaters at camp?

Michael Antonucci said...

Camp is where you make gimp and sing Kum-Bay-Yah. We have a seminar. :)

I don't really think they're "innovative." I guess I introduced the spreeder to debate, but I didn't invent most of this stuff.

General: don't overdo drills. Alternate 30-60 seconds of drill with 30-60 seconds of reading. That way, you can make your own determinations about what's improving your speed and clarity.

Specific:
1. Spreed for raw speed. www.spreeder.com.
a. check variable - adjust for word length
b. don't paste in text with lots of numbers (eg sports stats) - spreeder won't give you enough time to read those because it reads 123, say, as a three character string even though it's four syllables.
c. Work your way up.

2. Overarticulation for clarity. Open your mouth when speaking and bear down hard on consonants. I think it is useful to do this with a pen behind the incisors. (Front tooth, front tooth, incisors - it's the sharp vampire tooth.) Some disagree. Judge for yourself.

3. Backwards or a drill - Reverse the word order, or insert an "a" between words. Ideally, this should train you build in nanopauses between words, instead of issuing a solid wall of noise. Some believe it helps to train them to follow text with their eyes.

I hope that helps a little bit. If you want, I can post a video demonstration on the Georgetown Debate Seminar website.

allen said...

thanks, and that'd be awesome if you posted that video
i just want to say that Georgetown posting all the videos online was pretty awesome, so thanks