Working on Speech Improvement Alone pt 2

Efficiency

What is it?

1. Saying an argument with the least amount of words possible while still conveying the point
2. Not repeating an argument unnecessarily.
3. not reading unnecessary or repetitive evidence.
4. Extending only the arguments you need to win/not wasting time on un-winnable points.

Breaking them down individually:

Least words- this is pretty simple, instead of saying "this disad is totally not unique judge- because obama already did a stimulus, and in aforementioned stimulus he included some like, incentives for alternative energy projects, and here is a card about it " say "non unique- stimulus".

Seems simple enough. So things you should look to eliminate are
-overly long tags- dont explain warrants you are going to read in the evidence, give unnecessarily detailed descriptions that are contained in the cards etc.
-eliminate fluff language and filler words- this isn't an english essay- it doesnt have to be 3 pages with standard margins. A good tag is rarely over 10 words- remember judges CAN'T write all that down- who are you reading it for? Everytime I hear someone read a card that is like "heg will collapse, 10 reasons" and then lists the 10 reasons my eyes roll.
-highlight tags and theory blocks/overviews- a lot of times people type things out so that they have a stock overview to read, but then that overview is too long and they waste time in every debate they read it. They never think to change this because hey, they wrote it out so its gotta be good right? Case in point:

-highlight tags and theory blocks/overviews- a lot of times people type things out so that they have a stock overview to read, but then that overview is too long and they waste time in every debate they read it. They never think to change this because hey, they wrote it out so its gotta be good right? Case in point

Done and done.


Don't repeat args-
This happens most of the time when say an aff has a non unique trick and then repeats it on every disad (when there are 5 of them). Unless your argument changes dramatically for each disad, just say it once. Other instances are saying "reject argument not team" 20 times in a speech, or "don't vote on potential abuse" etc. Once you have said something like this, if you feel the need to say it in 50 other places just say "cross apply this to other voters" or "this is a universal response to cheap shots" etc. This one seems fairly obvious.

The more bothersome version of repetition arises I think when people have temporarily run out of things to say. They are trying to flounder and find a new argument and instead end up just repeating the argument they just made or an argument they made a short time ago. This is a sympton of trying to go to fast, and generally means you should slow down a little. Some people have argued that one of the benefits of speed is that you can repeat important points to have them sink in better, a la the simpsons (Marge: This town is a part of us all ... a part of us all ... a part of us all! Sorry to repeat myself, but It'll help you remember!). I think this has merit in certain instances to add emphasis, but this is not usually what is being done.

3. Repetitive evidence- 6 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing are not useful. Neither are 20 winners win cards. You should only read new evidence if the new piece of evidence adds a new argument, or in certain instances if it is better than the piece of previously read evidence (either because the argument you need to respond to has changed or because you slowplayed a powerful argument). Generally any time you hear yourself say "more evidence" that is a pretty good sign (unless you are doing the double reverse say more evidence but really its a whole new argument trick, at which point kudos to you).

4. Extending what you need to win- this generally props up later in the debate. The 2NR gets to 3 case flows with only 40 seconds left and tries to extend as much as possible. The better track is to focus on a few key arguments and give them each more time. It is inefficient to spend a small amount of time on a lot of arguments because you never really get to the meet of an issue. In a 2NR to win an argument you generally have to

-explain your argument
-answer their arguments that responded to it
-impact it

When people rush they just do a lot of step 1, and none of step 2 or 3. Step 1 is rarely enough to win an argument.