Sanu+vs.+Bensaac+-+Eshort

Round 8 7/3/13 Sanu v Isaac (Maverick) Everyone: 1. Stay away from hypotheticals—even though they may help you understand what is happening, use the evidence that you have to support the claims you are making (ie, would Castro accept US engagement, does US hegemony work, etc) 2. Think strategy—how do the arguments made in the 1AC and 1NC set up a strategy for the end of the debate—why did you read the arguments that you did? How do they interact with the other teams arguments—another strategy question may be about when you ask/answer questions. You should be using the time before your speech (ie, 1A before 1AR) should be prepping instead of asking questions 3. Line by line debating—this begins with a good flow (Im not sure how good or bad your flows are, but given some questions being asked in cross-x and the way you frame some arguments, Im guessing not too good)—the 2ac should set the tone for how the debate plays out—you want to reference each 2ac argument when answering, and for the aff, you want to reference each of the arguments you are extending—don’t just say “the other team didn’t talk about it, so I guess I don’t have to either”—use the flow to help frame the debate

Satish (1AC) – you have vocal inflection and enunciation down, but you can definitely go faster while keeping those intact. I think you may actually talk faster in everyday conversation than you did during the 1AC. Good understanding of the Aff in answering CX questions, but you want to be sure you can answer all the question—even though it’s ok to have your partner jump in, you want to have that as your last resort—this CX is your time to highlight your knowledge of your aff CX 1NC—good questions, but you don’t want to explain your arguments here—it is unlikely you are going to get your opponents to concede arguments during this time

Kanu (2AC) Good 2AC strategy putting case arguments first—if this was intentional, great! If not, it makes sense because the only offense they have is on the K, so winning your case first makes sense. You should be able to do the case debate more quickly here—you don’t need to read all the extension cards, but ones that enhance your answers to the 1NC arguments—for example, he hasn’t made a claim about whether or not engagement could solve i-law, so reading those cards doesn’t help you strategically. You should have about 6 minutes to answer the cap K, and instead you only spend about 2 minutes there.

Isaac (1NC) (2NC) Even though you are maverick, you want to split up the block—you don’t have to take everything in the 2NC, and in fact you don’t want to—if you had a partner, s/he would be forced to double cover in the 1NR. And, this is what happened—you want to go for one set of arguments in the 2NC and develop them, and a different set in the 1NR. (1NR) You mention the intent of the Aff in regards to the link level of cap, but be specific. The Aff is obviously going to say that is not the intent, so use their advantages and the rhetoric of the 1AC/2AC to demonstrate why you think that is the intent. You ended with about 3 minutes left, and are making some good arguments—keep going!