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.

Scranton Round 3 Bishop Guertin TT v. Newburgh Free MP

Scranton Invitational Round 3 [Bishop Guertin TT v. Newburgh Free MP]

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

Aff was ports dredging
1NC was PPP CP, Farm Bill Disad and Defense on Case

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

Emily Tobin- 28.6

Dave Toomey- 

Fracisco Mojica III-

Paul Pacione-

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

TO EVERYONE: CREATE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CARDS YOU READ BY SAYING 'NEXT' OR 'AND'.
Neg-when giving a 2NC, give an overview and really explain what the disad does and impact it! Like I said before, impact calculus is extremely under-utilized in debate!
**I think everyone in this round can utilize extending the arguments that were made in the constructive speeches. They not only save plenty of time, but boosts your ethos in the round.
***AFF- leverage your add on!! There must be a reason why you read it right?!
Speech by speech comments----------------------------------------------

1AC-EXCELLENT! You are incredibly fast and clear for a novice! I was really impressed!
1AC CX- Emily you have a great presence in the round. You seemed to really know what your aff does, and that was visible during cross-x.
----NEG: you guys should ask more than clarification questions! You are letting the aff talk for literally 3 minutes and they are just explaining the aff.
1NC-I didn't really like your negative strategy. Plus, you read wayyyy too many ppp cards (you read like 7-8)  when you could've read an extra off-case if you had just cut off the amount of cards that you read for the CP.
1NC CX-neg-good job explaining your politics scenario! Seems like you're doing your reading!
2AC- Loved the add on! Extremely strategic! Also, your answer to the farm bill disad was pretty much fiat solves the link--very smart!
2NC-don't just read cards! EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS! The 2NC is built for elaboration and explanation of your arguments to allow your judge to understand what you read in the 1NC! Not enough analysis was made in the 2NC. 
2NC CX-aff you did a great job pointing out the logical fallacies with the disad! Great job.
1NR: Your explanation of the farm bill disad was excellent! Permutations are abusive, btw. Just prove that they can't make a permutation argument because (i.e. it makes them sever out of their 1AC, 
2NR: 1NR: Your explanation of the farm bill disad was excellent! Permutations are abusive, btw. Just prove that they can't make a permutation argument because (i.e.

2AR: good analysis on case! I loved the impact comparison! However, you should've spent more time on the cp though!

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

The whole statistics debate was really weird for me. 60% of exports is still a lot less than like 20% of the entire US GDP. You have to contextualize these statistics. I had actually typed this out before Dave gave the 2AR--and the fact that you pointed this out is extremely impressive.

So ultimately, I voted on the fact that manufacturing advantage. Manufacturing increases r&d and innovation which allows the United States to prevent bioterrorism which is an existential threat--and is a probable threat. 

Scranton Round 2 Edgemont CS v. Stuy SW

Scranton Invitational Round 2 [Edgemont CS v. Stuyvesant XW]

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

Aff-Edgemont who ran rail

Speaker Points-----------------------------------------------------

Kent-26.5

Devin-27

Allico-26.8

Lucas-27.5

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

Kent- I get that you're flowing on your computer, but it doesn't seem like you're flowing. Seriously though, FLOW! Also, personally, you seem a bit rude in round... You were packing up and you just seemed that you had just stopped caring 

TO EVERYONE: SIGNPOST! SAY THINGS LIKE 'AND' OR TO DISTINGUISH THE CARDS YOU'RE READING

Lucas- HTF is actually a federal tax fuel tax that brought money to create interstate highway systems.

Devin- don't let Kent dominate your cx. He is literally asking and answering all the questions in the round for the affirmative.

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

1AC-you were very clear but you really should be a lot louder. I had a hard time hearing what you were reading.
1AC CX- don't limit yourself to only asking clarification questions
1NC- you should speak louder as well! Also, your T standards should be longer. Just saying 't is a voter for fairness and education' doesn't do anything. Warrant those standards.
1NC CX- Kent-
2AC- you answered the politics disad with election answers--make sure your answers apply! Also, you could've signposted--and also--be sure to do impact calculus. 
2NC- good job splitting up the block! I think that you did a great job extending the 1NC cards and proving that federalism would kill the economy and stunt the foundations of our system. You could make your 2NC much better by giving an overview on how the counterplan solves the case better! Your analysis on the fiscal cliff disad was good. DONT READ THE ROYAL CARD WHEN YOU READ ECON IMPACT DEFENSE! NOOOOOOOO.
2NC CX- Lucas you did a great job during CX explaining how you garner a link to fiscal cliff.
1NR-learn what the disad says so that you aren't stumped during your speech! You did explain why the disad doesn't link the the counterplan well.
1AR- Kent you should've been flowing. You conceded a bunch of arguments. 
2NR/2AR
The 2N did a very good job in the 2NR explaining why even having federal government involved will be detrimental to the economy.

The 2A didn't answer the federalism disad in the 2AR. Your analysis on case was wonderful though. It was extremely thorough and very concise. Good job!

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

I vote neg. I get that the aff also has the private sector involved, but the negative makes a distinction that any type of federal action or involvement will be inefficient. The 2NR was very effective in explaining how allowing the federal government to dictate and make decisions for every single state will inevitably fail 

Scranton Invitational Round 1-Lakeland MT v. Bishop Guertin SS

Scranton Invitational Round 1 [Lakeland MT v. Bishop Guertin SS]

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

Aff-Lakeland with Ports Aff

Neg-Bishop Guertin

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

Lakeland: 

---- Hassan-26.8

---- Humza-28.1

Bishop Guertin 

---- Isaiah-28.2

---- Jeff-27

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

AFF--you guys could extend your Russia war impact! The only thing that the negative does on case is indict your terrorism impact--the Russia scenario is your best option! I'm surprised it wasn't in the 2AC!

NEG-when extending T in the block, be sure to extend standards! 

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

1AC- very clear! Be sure to say either and or next to distinguish the cards you read! 

1AC CX: 

---- Neg--good job pinning the aff down on their terrorism impact

---- Aff--good job defending your terrorism scenario! TIP: read over your aff a couple of times and really become familiar with the cards that are in your 1AC.

1NC- I liked the fact that you signposted your offcase arguments and I appreciated the roadmap. Also, you were very clear! Good job!

1NC CX

---- Aff--good clarification questions! 

---- Neg-You guys seemed to know a lot about the 1NC strat! Good job explaining how the states solve the aff better!

2AC-I understand why you read security answers but they're not very responsive. Spend less time reading your security answers and spend more time covering the disads! Your speech was fairly organized and you pretty much stuck to your roadmap! Good job signposting as well!

2NC-I liked that you signposted! Also you have a very clear and loud voice so your arguments were extremely easy to flow.I enjoyed your explanation of the solvency deficit on case. NOTE: you spent a lot of time in the middle of your speech looking for your speech doc--try to be more organized next time! Good job picking out the logical fallacies in the aff! 

1NR-good job extending and explaining the cards that you read in the 1NC! Also you read the same Mueller card in the 1NR that was read in the 1NC and also read by the 2N in the 2NC... next time just extend it-don't reread cards! ALSO-when extending topicality in the block, remember to extend the standards--without them, there are no reasons why topicality should be a voting issue. Just reading your interpretation won't get you anywhere!
1AR- You should have answered the coast guard disad! Good job covering and indicting their Mueller evidence! Try to be more organized!
2NR- Good job with the evidence comparisons! I like how you distinguished the fact that interest doesn't mean that terrorists can obtain nuclear weapons. I liked how you mitigated their terror impact but next time, do some impact comparison!
2AR-good job doing line by line! Very impressive!

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

I voted negative on the coast guard disad and the no risk of nuclear terrorism. I voted on the fact that the plan would trade-off with the coast guard budget and destroy the coast guard. I also thought that the negative did a little better on the terror flow--there was a lot more analysis on why terrorism won't be a threat because terrorists won't be able to obtain enough materials to build them.

Practice Round #1 (Samiul and Kenji vs. Yiwen and Sara)

1AC (Kenji): When reading your 1AC, try to distinguish the cards by saying either 'next' or 'and'. Additionally, do some pen drills in order to help your clarity and tone. Also you had an extra 1:30 left so use that time to highlight more warrants in your cards because they might not be enough to support the claims that your tags make.

1AC Cross examination: 
                __ Sara-try to ask more straightforward questions. Stand in front of your opponent and make eye contact with the judge. *(this goes to you too kenji!) it'll drastically increase your speaker points!
                __ Kenji-read through your 1AC cards and become more familiar with them! It'll help you tons  when answering cross-ex questions.

1NC (Yiwen): You were very clear! Very good job! Make sure you have your 1NC together before you go up to give a speech (you may use prep if you really think you are unprepared for a speech!) Also, you can just cross apply the 1AC Royal card to your disad. Also on topicality--try not to be stumped in your 1NC. Try not to pause. Don't say "I don't know what I'm saying"--that drastically decreases your ethos. PLUS: don't read more than one topicality violation--I've discussed this in the last meeting.

1NC Cross examination:
                __Kenji: Try to rephrase your CX questions.Good job stumping the negative on their links to their politics disad.
                __ Yiwen- READ YOUR POLITICS DISAD and be able to explain it!

2AC (Samiul) Topicality--good job explaining the 'we meet' argument. Say that you are topical. Explain why you are topical. Your second card wasn't necessary--you can simply just extend a 1AC card.Also when saying your impact calculus, make it explicit that you are doing impact calculus--say that case outweighs or the impacts of the 1AC outweigh the impacts that the negative has brought up.PLUS: you have a very clear and loud voice! Keep it up! By the way, I like how you answered all (or most) of the arguments.

2AC Cross examination:
                __ Yiwen: Try to ask questions that will get you somewhere when it comes to your disad.
                 __Samiul: I liked your answer to the question about solvency--you seemed to know what you are saying! Answer the 'who are getting jobs' question better.

2NC (Sara): Start out your 2NC with impact calculus. Do more explanation of your disadvantage and tell the judge why it is a reason to vote negative. 

2NC Cross examination:
                 __Samiul: I liked your CX questions. Indicting evidence is a good idea!
                __ Sara: Try to stand behind your evidence!

*NOTE: Kenji try not to dominate your partners CX. You can intervene but don't make it obvious that you're asking all the questions.

1NR (Yiwen): Use ALL your time! You had 2:16 left.

 1AR (Kenji):  BEAUTIFUL JOB WITH THE EXTENSIONS! LOVE IT! Great job with the analysis that you made about the aff. Try to keep track of your time! Write an overview 

 2NR (Sara):  Good analysis on the top of the 2NR! Also address the judge instead of addressing the other debaters. FACE THE JUDGE! NO LINK STORY! Do a better job explaining the link!

 2AR (Samiul): You did a great job distinguishing the plan and the disadvantage and proved that the aff's impacts would come first. GOOD JOB!

I'M REALLY PROUD OF YOU ALL! GOOD JOB!

First Timers MHL Round 3 Edgemont JS vs. Lakeland CK

Overview of the Round

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aff-Edgemont JS who ran rail

Neg-Lakeland who ran sequestration DA, T must be pre-existing, and read Transportation rationality K /some infrastructure CP in the 2NC...

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

Here are some thoughts as to how I assign speaker points.

- I strongly dislike (because 'hate' is a strong word) debaters that lie and cheat. I despise debaters that lie about evidence. There's a difference between outright lying about evidence and 'spinning' an evidence and extrapolating from its' warrants. I don't like it when people clip cards for the obvious reasons. Just please don't lie and cheat.


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

Devin- start out by extending your aff. This is your offense in the round. The 3:30 you had left could've been used to develop your arguments and paint me a coherent picture about your aff. Also, DON'T CONCEDE T IN THE 2AC!

Ethan & Matthew- try not to pace around during CX. Stand firmly in one area for 3 minutes! try to give an overview on the top of the disad flow; develop your arguments!

Matthew- learn to pronounce 'bipartisan'! 

Fangwei- You have a very good presence in the round. You have a lot of ethos and your CX questions and your speeches clearly show that you've done some research! I really liked the empirics that you cited and the analysis you did about austerity.

- I enjoyed your evidence comparison too! I liked the fact that you pointed out that your card was from a bipartisan committee! 

Speech by speech comments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1AC- you are incredibly clear and fast for a novice. Keep up the good work! One tip though, try to further distinguish the tag of the card from the actual card. Also-Fangwei-your CX answers were excellent and proved to me that you are doing your research! You clearly know a lot about the economy.

1NC- Good speech! You spoke at a good pace and you spoke clearly.

2AC- DON'T DROP T IN THE 2AC. Luckily, the other team didn't end up extending it so good for you! Otherwise, your answers to the sequestration disad were sufficient but try not to read answers to the election disad because thats a waste of time and you could be utilizing your speech time doing much more efficient things.

2NC- Don't just read cards. Do some analysis on the arguments already read.

1NR- try not to reread the cards that you had already read in the 1NC! The analysis you did after reading the disad over again was good-I wish that I could have seen that earlier in the round! 

1AR- Your speech was great! Arguably the best speech I've seen a novice give in a while. You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the economy and about history. I like how you did line by line. This speech was excellent. 

2NR- You did some analysis in the 2NR that I would have liked to hear earlier in this round.

2AR- The 2AR had several framing issues that persuaded me to vote aff. 

RFD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was persuaded that freight increases trade which acts as a deterrent because it increases interdependence among countries. Also, I really liked the 2AR because it was really effective in proving to me that it really is try or die for the aff. 

First Timers MHL Round 2 Edgemont CR vs. Lakeland MS

1AC-good speaking voice, very clear. Good job answering CX questions.
1NC- you could be a little louder, but you were overall clear--so its fine. I did notice that you read the same card twice. Next time, try not to do that.
2AC- your analysis on case was very good! Your line by line on case was impressive and very responsive. You have a lot of ethos.
2NC- You should try not to only read cards! Do more analysis on the fiscal cliff DA!
1NR- Your analysis on the fiscal cliff DA was good, but please try to tell me a more coherent link story!
1AR- this speech was excellent. You did a great job persuading me that you don't link to the disad and that the negative can't access their impacts. The empirics that referred back to the Chinese economy was utilized well!
2NR- Your 2NR was only a minute long! Next time, be sure to use or at least try to use all your speech time.
2AR- your overview on case was very good!


RFD: I am persuaded that the negative can't access their nuclear war impacts. The 1A and 2A do a great job of explaining the no link argument made. The aff did a good job defending their aff and proving how HSR would ultimately boost the economy by creating jobs, increasing private sector investment and would decrease pollution.


Tips

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis--try to give more than a 1/2 minute 2NR! Develop your arguments!

Kent--please flow!

Speaker Point System
Edgemont
Kent Cai- 28
Jared Rosner- 28

Lakeland
Ryan Mulhern-27
Dennis San Lucas-26.5