Gandhi,+Nisarg


 * Round 1: Blaize DePass: **Julia/Cecelia vs Nisarg/Aasim

EVERYONE—IMPACTS, IMPACTS, IMPACTS. You gotta explain the impacts of the arguments you all are making and pit them against each other. I want to know what I am voting for and why voting for you is better than voting for them. The other thing is CX. You need to try and garner offense or links so that you have more weight to your arguments in the actual speeches. There also needs to be a lot more communication between the partners so that everyone can be on the same page. If you want something extended, tell your partner so that there isn’t confusion between you all which could cost you the debate. Also, you all need to take your arguments a step further, and explain the WHY’s and HOW’s of your arguments. You get to the base level, but make sure to take it a step further.

Nisarg (1NC)—You are clear, but you start a little fast. I think you need to slow down on tags a little as well as things like cp text. If you want me to get it down you need to slow it down a little. Your card text reading is fine and clear for card text reading, but slow down some for the tags. Time allocation was fine for the 1nc. Just work on tag and evidence variation.

Nisarg (1NR)—This was good. You had some interesting analysis on the case flow especially on the impact analysis. I think you had good time allocation as seeing what you were given to take in the 1NR. I think you should work on your line by line a bit so that when you get in these techy debates judges can follow.




 * Round 5: Blaize DePass:** Max vs Nisarg/Aasim

Nisarg (1NC)—You did better in this 1NC than last time. I don't like rules either, but you read an alt on the Cap K that isn't in the camp packet. I know the reject the aff is a boring alternative, but that's what you gotta run with for now. Besides that the 1NC was fine, you got to the advantages and answered what you needed to. Good time allocation and clarity was better than last time.

Nisarg (1NR)—Great 1NR. I still think you should follow rules about alts, but besides that this was a good 1NR. I saw your little floating PIK trick...clever. I think that you did a good job answering what you needed to, and I think this 1NR was better than your last. I think you should go further with this foster evidence and give me something to weigh it against explicitly, but besides that, good speech.


 * Round 6: Blaize DePass:** Aasim/Nisarg vs Noah/Sam

Nisarg (2AC)--I think you made good arguments, but time allocation was really messy. You get to the k with 1:30 left, this can be very problematic. I think you can be making most of your arguments on case on cap instead and apply them specifically to cap. I also think you need to make a perm instead of saying "we CAN make a permutation". I also think that swearing CAN be good as a emphasizer, but it gets a little excessive over time.

Nisarg (2AR)--This was a good speech. i think that a lot of this offense needs to be in the 1AR. That's a communication issue. I think you are making good and smart arguments, there just has to be some more continuity. Besides that you did well. I think you need to be explaining the impact more than on the T flow, and applying it to things.

6-30: Nisarg and Aasim—I think that you should characterize your non-English speaking during prep as part of your performance.

Nisarg— “that’s messed up” isn’t offense on the Miley Cyrus disad—you need a better answer to the appropriation links. Solid 2ar—you do well with the role of the ballot stuff.

7-2: Nisarg—you’re trying way too hard to get her to admit to the model minority thing—there’s just no reason to push like that. 1nr: I think that you need to go deeper on the whiteness argument—“he spoke first” isn’t the most compelling argument.

Nisarg and Aasim—I think that there’s a significant contradiction between your 1nc poem and your 2nc args about speaking for others—the poem includes a really emotional account of parents whose kids experience state violence and you’re clearly not that. You guys also need to develop the model minority stuff more thoroughly.

Generally everyone needs to work on clash—the debate feels like it’s all about how neither side does anything for the other side, so it comes down to this “me first” framework without warrants for why I should vote for Ann the yellow pirate or Aasim and Nisarg the terrorists first. If Ann doesn’t think we need to blow up debate, how does the counteradvocacy make space for her to be a pirate? And if Aasim and Nisarg think that we definitely do need to blow it up, how does making Ann a pirate move them out of the state of exception?