Newark MHL Round 1 NFA MR v. Eastside DR

Newark MHL Round 1 NFA MR v. Eastside DR

Debaters: Caroline Mamaat (1A) Jaleene Ramirez (2A) 

Sarah De Matos (1N) Vincent Roselli (2N)

1AC—Caroline- Very clear, work on speaking a bit louder, also be sure to distinguish the cards from each other by saying either ‘next’ or ‘and’ between cards. Good job on explicitly stating your advantages in the 1AC!

CX—Vincent: try not to ask open ended questions, just allows them to use cx as an extra speech to talk about their advantages.

-       Caroline: good job answering CX questions, you referenced statistics and empirics which is good.

-       Caroline: be able to answer what Cuba is able to provide for the United States. They have an extremely advanced agricultural orgoponics system, can provide oil and cigars. 

1NC—Sarah-your voice is very loud and clear. Just one thing—you should learn to pronounce words like ‘incite’, ‘sanctions’ and ‘communist’ in your 1NC. One tip: you read a lot of cards on case, which is extremely helpful but it would be useful if you had some offensive arguments in your 1NC.

CX—Caroline: Don’t look for buzzwords and ask about them in the 1NC, you should focus on asking questions about the argument itself and not about the phrases that you hear in the cards. Asking about buzzwords doesn’t do much for you in the scope of the round.

-       Sarah: Don’t just read off your cards to answer CX questions, make sure you are able to answer the CX questions in your own words.

2AC—Jaleene-The clash in the first minute or so in your speech was good! Keep it up! This is rare especially in novice rounds. You did line by line, which was good, but don’t get too flustered. You should be able to explain what your aff even if you encounter arguments that you aren’t familiar with.

-       VINCENT: tourists aren’t the ones spreading democracy

-       VINCENT ASKED: do you have ev to back up your claims? your answer? THE 1AC CARDS

2NC—Vincent-you don’t have to explain what the squo is. Also, your analysis was very good! I really appreciated the analogies! I liked how you were able to explain why Cuba isn’t reliant on the United States. Also, I found your reading of the new disad and the counterplan as inappropriate because THEY WERE BRAND NEW. The 1AR has five minutes to respond to your two new disads and thirteen minutes of negative arguments in the block. Plus, if you do decide to read the counterplan in the 1NC, PLEASE READ A COUNTERPLAN TEXT!!!!!

1NR—Sarah-learn to give a roadmap! Your analysis was very good and impressive!

1AR—Caroline-good job! Best aff speech this entire round! You did line by line and analysis and did a good job with coverage!

2NR—Vincent-Never turn down prep time! You are very well spoken and your personal experiences add a lot to your speech.

2AR—Jaleene-your speech was a lot better this time! Good job with line by line! Be sure to answer the democracy indicts that they extended.

RFD: I voted neg. I think that there is minimal risk of solvency for the aff. Several arguments regarding the democracy advantage were conceded by the affirmative and the poverty debate became extremely insignificant. The negative also does a better job articulating why the United States isn't necessarily critical to Cuba's economy, democracy and their relations with other countries. 

Beacon Round 3 BkTech v. Stuy

Judge Comments (Beacon Round 3 Brooklyn Tech v. Stuyvesant)

Speech by Speech comments

1AC- Temur—you are very fast for an novice but sometimes your speed causes you to stumble over words. Try to do some enunciation/pen drills! Also make sure you keep track of where you are on your speech doc! You keep on losing your place when you read your 1AC! However, I liked how your vocal inflection changes every time you read a tag! Made it easy for me to flow.

1AC CX- get to know your aff better! You couldn’t explain why not doing HSR collapses US competitiveness! Please look over your aff and be sure you can explain why congestion is bad and why competitiveness would collapse without HSR! Also, you said you solved for warming, but none of these arguments were made in the 1AC!

1NC—read the counterplan text first! Also, I don’t like the tag “extinction” it doesn’t tell much and is very vague. Also, Temur, its your CX—don’t let your partner dominate and ask ALL the questions!

1NC CX—Sophia—learn to answer CX questions more thoroughly!

2AC—Good coverage—however, try not to take almost 5 minutes of prep—if you have blocks to arguments, it shouldn’t take you that long because there were only two off case arguments and one argument on case. Also, you don’t have to explain a card right after you read it! However, GREAT LINE BY LINE and good analysis on case!

2NC-good explanation of the oil disad and I liked your 2NC overview on the Counterplan.
1NR- good job doing impact calculus comparing the warming impacts that the aff has and the sino us war that you guys are impacting!

1AR-

2NR- don’t read 50 state fiat good in the 2nr. if the argument wasn’t made earlier, I wouldn’t vote on it. Also, they didn’t read 50 state fiat bad so you don’t have to waste your time reading it. more analysis on how you link to your impact should be done.

General Comments

AFF—Please look over your aff and be sure you can explain why congestion is bad and why competitiveness would collapse without HSR! Also, you said you solved for warming, but none of these arguments were made in the 1AC!

NEG- you don’t have to say words like “link”, “impact”… Don’t like the ‘extinction’ tag

-        also, saying “US is the heg” doesn’t make sense; say US is a hegemon

-        the card you read in the 1NR that says there is no short term economic stimulus effect is talking about the EIS CP—doesn’t apply

-        even if we don’t fight over oil, we will probably be there—not reverse causual

-        1NR-stop saying ‘nuke war and extinction

Speaker points

-        Tina—28

-        Harith—28.5

-        Sophia 27.5

-        Temur-27

Ridge Invitational Round 3 [ACORN WR v. Lakeland CK]

Ridge Invitational Round 3 [ACORN WR v. Lakeland CK]

Overview of the Round----------------------------------------------------

Aff was dbill$

Speech by speech comments---------------------------------------------- 

1AC- Darius—you have a good clear speaking voice! Very loud and clear. Next time, you should work on keeping your voice consistent. Your voice tends to fluctuate over time and you tend to lose stamina. Also, I realized that your first contention is ‘mobility’, which is also the name of your second contention…

1AC CX- Innocuous does not mean to ‘be selfish’—note that; it means that something is not harmful or offensive

1NC- Matthew you didn’t read an impact to your disad!

1NC CX- Asking ‘can you explain your arguments’ is a really bad question because it allows your opponent to clarify and elaborate their arguments during CX. You are literally just handing them another speech.

2AC- you didn’t stay on our roadmap! Try to stay on track next time.

2NC- Its ‘bay-ner’ not Boehner. Remember to pronounce it correctly to avert embarrassment next time. Also—careful with your CP text!

1NR-good explanation of the sacred cow link! however, both of you should learn how to split up the neg block. you guys literally just repeated each other!

1AR- I thought that your 1AR was good but there were too many conceded arguments because I realized that you didn’t flow.

2NR/2AR- I think that the 2NR did a better job explaining why the states would do the plan better.

Ridge Invitational Round 1 [East Side EV v. Lakeland VS]

-       

Ridge Invitational Round 1 [East Side EV v. Lakeland VS]

Overview of the Round----------------------------------------------------

Aff was mass transit

1NC-gentrification disad, fiscal cliff disad and case defense

Speech by speech comments---------------------------------------------- 

1AC- Brianna you did a wonderful job saying ‘and’ in between cards to distinguish them for me! NOTE: Try to read your 1AC a couple more times—you seem to be stumbling on several words~

1NC- Learn how to give a roadmap! Also try to be more organized during your 1NC.

2AC- you said that racism must be prioritized, but you didn’t extend warrants as to WHY they should be prioritized. Additionally, take the advice I gave Brianna—re-read your cards a couple of times over—you also seemed to be stumbling on words. Overall—you did a great job extending your aff! Good job!

2NC- I liked your overview of the fiscal cliff disad at the top of the 2NC but I think that that analysis should be present on other flows.

Miguel (during 2NC CX)- I thought you did a fantastic job trying to piece apart the link to their fiscal cliff disad! great questioning!

1NR- try to split up the neg block! Great analysis on the disad—note that this same analysis was done in the 2NC as well.

RFD-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I voted affirmative. I thought that the affirmative did a much better job framing how racism would come first and how the probability of nuclear war is just too low to be compared to. Also, I have a clear extension of the ‘mass transit would solve the economy and create jobs’ argument so I am persuaded to vote aff. 

Practice Rounds for Ridge [Carmen and Nandini &Fiona and Bridget]

Speech by speech comments---------------------------------------------- 

1AC-Carmen you did a great job distinguishing the cards from each other! I liked how you read your plantext extremely loudly! ONE TIP: try to be clearer--you're pretty fast though! LEARN HOW TO PRONOUNCE "KEYNESIAN" its not key-nesian its literally pronounced canes-ee-un.

1NC- Bridget you need to be louder and faster! Have more confidence in round! Also make sure you review your 1NC. The only offense was on the states scenario, which Carmen didn't get up to. There are too many case arguments. Be sure to read a DA or CP!

2AC- great line by line! You did very well answering back every argument in the 1NC! You could've read an overview! 

Scranton Quarterfinals

Scranton Invitational NOVICE QUARTERFINALS

 [La Salle HG v. Newark Tech PE]

Speech by speech comments----------------------------------------------

1AC- great job signposting 
1NC- you're pretty fast and clear! Next time, just make sure you distinguish the arguments from each other (I didn't know when to switch from the CP flow to the Disad flow; I did figure it out, but some signposting would help!) Also, what you did during the 1NC was really sketchy. You said you would read 3 off (which was T, the CP/federalism, Fiscal discipline) and then you read an ENTIRE KRITIK. Since there was no signposting, it was hard to distinguish what the k was until I heard you reading an alternative. 
1NC CX- aff--you did a great job contesting the validity of the federalism disad! 
2AC- you should've stuck to your roadmap! T was sort of undercovered! You should've provided standards on T and given reasons why the judges shouldn't vote for the topicality violation (i.e., reasonability, substantial checks, lit checks...)
2NC-Great analysis on how the private sector could solve for the aff better than the government could! But I think you have to address the question that the federal government has to admit to their flawed policymaking first. Also, you should explain why the CP is mutually exclusive, rather than just stating that it is. There isn't much analysis on why this argument actually stands.
1NR- The analysis on the K was good, but I still don't know what the alternative does. In order to evaluate a kritik, I would like to know how the alternative functions in the debate and in this case, how exactly having individual action solves for their impacts (as you stated in the 1NR)
1AR- your 1AR was EXTREMELY EFFICIENT. One thing that you should've done that would've made the 2AR easier was to extend the whole 'framing' contention that the judge should vote on what is probable and not possible. This framing issue would've made it easier for you to just quickly answer the link level of the negative's arguments. 
2NR-Honestly, this speech disappointed me a little. It was good, but you could've done much more to ensure your win. First of all, there was little to no analysis on the alternative of the kritik, which was a very viable option coming out of the 1AR. Also, you didn't really impact the theory stuff.
2AR-

RFD-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the issue in this round is the lack of analysis made in the late rebuttal speeches. In the 2AC and the neg block, I thought that the analysis was pretty good and was very thorough. If either side had actually done the analysis in the last rebuttals, my decision would have been much easier to make.

I voted aff--the framework was conceded all throughout the round.

Scranton Round 4 Lakeland LG v. EL Meyers MP

Scranton Invitational Round 4  [Lakeland LG v. EL Meyers MP]

Overview of the Round----------------------------------------------------

Aff-was lakeland's port security high speed gas chromatography aff

1NC-T (excludes alteration or repair), States CP, Terror defense

Speaker Point System------------------------------------------------------

Tips-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEG-learn how to pronounce words!

--- Lindsey learn to pronounce 'divert' and 'bipartisanship'

--- Morgan-don't say 'skip the rest of this' just say 'mark the card here'

--- Shay-yes i get your racism argument, I wouldn't mind voting on it, but it wasn't impacted

*** AFF-IMPACT YOUR ARGUMENTS!

Speech by speech comments----------------------------------------------

1AC- Very clear but try to speak a bit louder! I noticed how you didn't read the cites correctly--be sure to read the date. 

1AC CX- Shay-be sure to pay attention during the entire CX! Yo ucan't 

1NC- Very clear! You should be careful when reading a counter-plan text, be sure to include their plan text instead of saying 'port security'. Also learn how to pronounce specific words such as 'bipartisanship' and 'diverts'.

1NC CX- don't let the question 'how much does the CP cost' stump you! Also, don't let the aff trap you into making a solvency deficit to your own counter-plan!

2AC-Very good 2AC! You made a we meet argument on T without realizing it! Also you did a very good job explaining the thesis of your aff and why it is necessary.

2AC CX- neg--your questions are extremely nitpicky and redundant. 

2NC- Don't say 'skip the rest of this' just say 'mark the card here'

1NR-you did a fantastic job with topicality. Good job with the evidence comparison on the T flow--you really persuaded me that only your author had intent to define.

RFD-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that there are a couple of issues to address in this debate.

First of all, it is like, conventional wisdom that mexico is a very drug cartel-heavy country. The whole country is run by drug cartels.

I think the biggest issue is that the affirmative sort of under covered topicality. I understand that you read a counter interpretation but you didn't read any standards. Additionally, I thought that the negatives interpretation creates the best vision for the topic because like they said (and i quote this verbatim from the 2nr) 'its a country-wide view' as in and is the best interpretation for the federal government.