Tradia+vs.+Johndawg+-+Gokey

MDAW 2013 Camp Practice Round Ballot June 26, 2013 6:30 Judge: Peter Gokey, Edina High School pgokey@gmail.com

1A: Nadia Goldman 1/2N: John Peng 2A: Trace Thompson

The better debating was done by:

RFD/comments:

Very early in the camp; comments take that into account.

It’s always a good practice to read 1AC/1NC out loud in the hall before the round starts so you have a sense beforehand if you need more or less cards to start with. Earlier in the season, it’s harder to gauge that, which makes it a more valuable practice. Later in the season, it’s still very useful, when squeezing that extra card in can ultimately change decisions at times.

The China shell could be significantly streamlined.

As I was telling John before the round, one of the key elements in winning debates is knowing the topic and knowing the evidence better than your opponents do. As such, there are plenty of returns to be had from spending a ton of timing getting to know the files as well as possible. Read, read, read.

Trace, the line by line on case in the 2AC might suggest you didn’t flow, or listen to 1NC. What he did was a plain case dump of 4 cards. Very easy to answer – just reply to each of the 4 cards. You tried to make his case dump more than it was by finding places to apply it to the flow (which judges simply never do when the flow) and by characterizing what the argument was in a way other than what the argument said. Judges typically will flow the tag, and some will take notes on what the card actually says (I do the first always, and the second as much as possible). You were mischaracterizing his arguments. Just refer to his arguments the way they’re tagged for signposting purposes, and if you then want to say that the card actually says something other than how it was tagged, you can make that argument then. But for signposting, keep consistent with 1NC structure and naming. Once you’ve done all that (or before that, whichever) you can extend the parts of your case he concedes.

1AR could have done some impact work. Also, when extending arguments, extend the argument by its name, not by the author used to make it. Not every cite gets flowed, but (typically), every argument gets flowed. You are much, much less likely to lose a judge on the flow that way, and more likely to actually win a cross app that way.

2NR – it functionally wasn’t given. You gotta make the most of the experience! A really good thing to do from this round – where the round really needed the most shift – was in 2NC. What I really suggest you do in some free time – and do this soon, so it’s fresh in your mind – is to sit with the flow of the 2AC on the DAs, and re-write the block answers as a way of getting used to how to debate these arguments. I know rebuttal redos are a popular coaching technique but I tend not to be fans of them in many instances because it’s common that the real redo comes from block or 2AC mistakes. Otherwise, rebuttal redos are like carving rotten wood. They are good for honing technical skills and communication skills.

Trace, decent 2AR. Some form of an overview would have helped to make the speech a bit more cohesive.