Jump to content

Blogs

 

The Trump Card

Does any body have a "Trump will win in 2016 if dems lose"   I'm pretty sure if anyone had that, i would start reading politics vs. race affs and just turn them.   Cuz... Trump.

Adidas06

Adidas06

 

A call to Coaches

My most recent Saturday tournament (Varsity CX at Paris North Lamar in East Texas) consisted of three debates in which neither competitors nor judges knew exactly what was going on.   Why?   Because every team I competed against read a complicated advocacy of which they could not explain paired with a RoB (Roll of the Ballot) framed specifically around their advocacy. The case debate was non-existent. My case was freaking drones.   Now what is the problem with this? Its bad debate! If you can even call it debate.   After one such round, I talked with my opponents. They told me they had been doing debate for three years (both were juniors) and that they did not understand what they had read- a psychoanalysis K. Confused, I asked why they had decided to run thee K, to which one replied "My coach said it would win, he talks about this type of stuff all the time but it goes a bit over our heads".   And here we find the fault.   Psychoanalysis is a complicated critical theory that is hard to grasp for even the most educated political scientists, philosophers, and physicians. So why, may I ask, do we put it in to the hands of high school students to discuss, debate, and overall butcher? My thesis is that winning has overshadowed education in what is supposed to be its one last stronghold.   We write blocks and put them in to student's hands so that they win.
Why? Why can we not prepare debaters to think? Teach students to respond to arguments in their way, in a logical way that makes sense to them? We must remember that it is our students who are supposed to be learning to form argumentation, not us. It seems that with the "Golden generation" of high school debaters growing up and coaching, they can't let go of the fact that its not about them anymore. This appears to be the case with judges as well. The fad of "doing work" has appeared. Filling gaps in argumentation with a judge's own knowledge or opinions is not the point of debate (YOU WILL ALWAYS BEAT THE CHILD YOU ARE JUDGING, don't worry-we know that. You don't have to prove it), a good educator should judge on whats given to them, no more and no less.   Why do we tell our students they can't do something or that they must do something?
"You must put uniqueness first in your disadvantage."
"You can't run new arguments in the 2NC"
"You must spread." "You can't spread"
No, your regional biases and trends do not dictate what you MUST do in a debate round. The whole point of debate is to provide a structured round (speech length and order) while not limiting the student's creativity and argumentation i.e. if I can persuade the judge of it then I can do it. There are no rules in debate other than these (provided a few in certain circuits that dictate evidence rules and the like) and that is a good thing. It keeps debate what it is.   Coaches and judges alike need to realize, debate is about the students and their education. Winning is a side-effect of good debates.

TheBigDA

TheBigDA

 

Help me teach a freshman.

Both me and my old partner are doing our first tournament with freshman so we can teach them policy.   How do I teach a freshman policy debate?       My partner is running Foucault for the aff, but I'm thinking of running a down to earth Islamaphobia/airports aff.   Suggestions would help.

Adidas06

Adidas06

 

Help!

Hey guys! I was wondering if you guys have debated any of these teams in Novice division. If you have, what affirmative do they run with what advantages? They don't post themselves on the Wiki. Alpharetta High - Novice
Berkeley Prep - Novice
Cathedral Prep - Novice
Chattahoochee - Novice
Georgetown Day School - Novice
Greenhill - Novice
Heritage Hall - Novice
Montgomery Bell - Novice
Mount Vernon Presbyterian - Novice
Northview - Novice
Paideia - Novice
Ransom Everglades - Novice
Stratford Academy - Novice
USN - Novice
University of Chicago Lab Schools - Novice
Westminster Schools - Novice
  Please help! Thank you!

1NCLife

1NCLife

 

Any tips or evidence?

So recently my partner and I went to our second varsity debate tournament and we were hit with a k aff round one, in order to stop any more utter surprises and confusions during future rounds, does anyone have any generic files to run against K affirmatives? Also can someone explain to me what a K aff is exactly and what I things i can and can't run against it? Thanks!

BeanieBeanie

BeanieBeanie

 

I'm Starting to Get the Hang of This.......I Think

So its been a week. A week of confusing acronyms. A week of not knowing what the hell everyone was saying. A week of only catching every 5 words that came out my coaches. But thank god I'm starting to get the hang of this flowing thing. Well we have been flowing the exact same thing for a week now. Its Cuban embargo with stability and democracy every single day. Aren't we killing an unnecessary amount of trees for all this copy paper that we are flowing on? Seriously this class uses like 100 pieces of copy paper a day. Not that I'm an environmentalist or anything. This is starting to all make sense at least. I can't remember the difference between solvency and inherency but at least I can list the parts of a 1AC.......or at least I think that is what it is called. I definitely want to be the 1A when we start splitting into partners. They only have to give one actual speech! I don't get what the big deal about giving the 1AR is, it can't be that hard can it? Oh well it is still only one speech! I also still don't understand the point of having these giant boxes. If we are just going to be carrying around a small folder of papers that is a 1AC. Seems like a bit of an over kill huh? One of the older kids told me that it only gets harder from here. How much harder could it get.........     *After note written as a varsity debater Wow i was stupid as a novice
 

Orientation or More Accurately Intimidation.

I have made a terrible mistake. Well I didn't make the mistake it was the counselors for putting me in here because there was nothing else open this hour. I don't know how to debate, heck I don't even know what we are supposed to be debating. This is 7th hour after all I could just skip this class all year and walk home. But, wait I'm too much of a goody two shoes for that. So looks like the rest of the semester will be spent just like today, sitting on this chair scared out of my wits and hoping that no one notices than I am here. At least the other freshman look just as nervous as I do. But then there's them. Are all debaters really tall? Do they all talk that loud and inhumanly fast? Do they all just stand around here and yell at each other for fun? Finally a few minutes after the bell rings our teacher comes out and brings the class to order.....well sorta. She then starts rambling on about something called a "Blue Bible" and spitting out words like solvency and inherency. I have absolutely no idea what this woman is talking about. What the heck is a 1AR and why is it the hardest speech in the round? What!? You mean we have to have a partner!? I don't even know anyone in this place! Why do I need to buy a tub? This is about to be a long semester.......
 

Judging Paradigms

CrossX.com is great for many CX reasons. There should be a tabbed section for people to post their judging paradigms online and list the tournaments they have judged, references etc. There may already be such a system in place. If so, please tell me how to find it. I know how to get such info on two other sites, but having everything on one CX site would be AWESOME! Please help. Send a link or support this blog entry by agreeing with it. If enough users want it, it is more likely to be added. Thank you, WTJAZZ

WTJAZZ

WTJAZZ

 

Targeted Killing Stuff

Particularism AC.doc Yemen DA.doc PD File.doc Arg Matey v2.0.doc Pakistan DA.doc 30 Cards Tartakovsky.doc Choi_assignment.doc Tom_Cameron_Cards.doc Noah Star 30 Cards.doc paige_30 cards.doc FINK VBI 2011 - Card File.doc

LDr

LDr

 

Which Camp

I have been fretting over which camp i should go to this summer and ive been looking around and I AM IN LOVE with the seven week program at Michigan, but i simply dont think i would get in or be able to afford it's hefty price. I have done some searching and i has questions about two camps... 1. Gonzaga 4 week varsity.. pros/cons? research? k? theory? framework? skills? SPUING? 2. Marquette debate institute camp... its two weeks and cheaper, but is it any good? K? pros/cons? 3. Texas University UTNIF skills intensive...skills? k? theory? framework? skill? SPUING? worth the cost..?

tabbilynn

tabbilynn

 

Ld Jan/feb Resolution Aff Help

I affirm the resolution that the United States ought to value rehabilitation over retribution in the criminal justice system. Hi guys, so this is my case for the January LD topic and I have to say that I feel greatly disadvantaged when I debate on the Affirmative. I feel like this resolution gives more options for the NEG and its a lot easier to argue on the NEG. The first philosophy I studied was the Veil of Ignorance and Rawls' views on Justice and I have developed a liking towards them. I know there are better values out there but I would really like to debate these. I think this is an ok case. I just want to know how to make it stronger, what points should I really impact, and if there is more evidence I need and possibly two more strong contentions. Thankyou   For the Debate, I will offer the following definitions from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:   Ought-moral obligation.   Rehabilitation- to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity.   Retribution- something given or exacted in recompense; especially: Punishment   Criminal Justice System- a just and impartial regularly interacting group forming a unified whole relating to or involving a crime.   The Core value for today’s debate is justice as defined by John Rawls as fairness. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all. It is irrational for any representative to limit the liberty of any individual in society on the basis of their status or attributes. In addition, social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and, second they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.   I offer the value criterion of the Veil of Ignorance because we can truly achieve Justice with it. The Veil of Ignorance is a concept by John Rawls that teaches us a way to view things in a more impartial and just way. The Veil of Ignorance deprives the parties of all knowledge of particular facts about themselves, one another, and even about their society and its history. This purpose is to place us in a “position of equalityâ€. Without this access to excess particular knowledge, parties cannot have their judgments distorted and thus result in unfair principles. With my core value and my value criterion, I will now move on to my first contention.     Contention 1- Rehabilitation deters recidivism in criminal offenders.   According to Issues and Controversies, “federally funded rehabilitation programs are effective in reducing recidivism. studies show that participants in vocational and work programs, as well as prison education, exhibit recidivism rates 20%-60% below those of nonparticipants… The statewide average for recidivism at that time was 42.5%†  Through rehabilitation, people better themselves and undergo beneficial changes. This not only gives people another chance into society, but it also betters society as a whole. Rehabilitation is completely moral because it provides for the good of everyone. It seeks to “cure†people of their desire to inflict and hurt. It seeks to better society and turn the bad into good. Through the Veil of Ignorance, people would be blind to society’s information and facts. They wouldn’t know who the victims are and who the attackers are. Regardless, everyone in society would want the thing that betters them and then betters society. Rehabilitation offers this option to everyone under the Veil because everyone has an equivalent chance of being the attacker. When we look to the Veil of Ignorance, we achieve Justice, the greatest value in the round. Contention 2-Criminals will only know what is shown to them, thus retribution will teach them crime and fear. According to the Prison Honor Program• The 120,000 parolees who are released into our neighborhoods each year have endured the extreme trauma of the prison experience and years of exposure to other “hardened†criminals.   By this logic, retribution is clearly detrimental to our society as a whole. If each person in society were to be denied rehabilitation, than the majority will end up having traumatic experiences. This is immoral and unjust. In order to view this justly, we would have to look through the Veil of Ignorance. Under the Veil, no one in society would know their place. No one would know whether they were the victim or the victor, so we must act in the self-interest of both. We do so by allowing rehabilitation for everyone. This way, as the victim or victor you would have a second-chance back into society. This is a very impartial way of approaching this because everyone would have an equal chance of being a victor so it accounts for all possible outcomes. When we apply the Veil of Ignorance, we achieve justice, and therefore promote my core value.

yazan231

yazan231

 

Debate Terms

I have a few questions NEED HELP... Whats is a solvency deficit?
Do all kritiks have to be non topical?
How do you announce that the other team has double turned?
Lastly, what is the definition of framework?

chi617435

chi617435

 

Introducing Debate Vision Scholarships - 2012

The 2012 Debate Vision Scholarship Application in now available.   Deadline: April 1, 2012, 5 pm CST.   Eligibility: All high-school freshman, sophomores, and juniors are eligible to apply   The Awards: The Founders' Scholarship is an award for one individual demonstrating financial need. It is a partial or full scholarship for tuition, room and board to a summer debate camp depending on the resources of the Scholarship Fund and the needs of the award recipient.   The PolicyOnPoint.com Endowed Scholarship is an award for one individual with exceptional debate achievements, who may or may not demonstrate financial need. The award will cover either partial or full expenses of attending a debate camp, depending on the needs of the recipient.   To Apply, download the Application Packet and follow all instructions therein. (Requires Microsoft Word) debatevision.com/Local_Ads/DV_Scholarship_Application_2012.doc

DebateVision

DebateVision

 

Introducing Debate Vision Scholarships - 2012

The 2012 Debate Vision Scholarship Application in now available.   Deadline: April 1, 2012, 5 pm CST.   Eligibility: All high-school freshman, sophomores, and juniors are eligible to apply   The Awards: The Founders' Scholarship is an award for one individual demonstrating financial need. It is a partial or full scholarship for tuition, room and board to a summer debate camp depending on the resources of the Scholarship Fund and the needs of the award recipient.   The PolicyOnPoint.com Endowed Scholarship is an award for one individual with exceptional debate achievements, who may or may not demonstrate financial need. The award will cover either partial or full expenses of attending a debate camp, depending on the needs of the recipient.   To Apply, download the Application Packet and follow all instructions therein. (Requires Microsoft Word) debatevision.com/Local_Ads/DV_Scholarship_Application_2012.doc   More information at www.debatevision.com

DebateVision

DebateVision

 

Which Debate Should I Do?

WHICH DEBATE SHOULD I DO?   So, which debate should I do? That’s an important question that faces aspiring debaters that are just beginning their freshman year. This post is designed to help you make your decision. Let’s begin by looking at all the options.   Policy Policy debate is intense. One topic is given year round and by the end of the year, students acquire knowledge equivalent to a Master’s Thesis. Each team has two people, and to be successful you have to be very comfortable with your partner. Also, debaters do what’s called “spreading†in the upper echelons of debate. They speak extremely fast to get out as much information as possible. This practice is considered good by some and bad by others; it’s a matter of personal opinion. To be successful, you’re going to have to go to camp, have a few good coaches, and do a lot of work. Good for people who: -Are looking to be very competitive -Are prepared to spend thousands of dollars on debate camps in summer -Are willing to do work (especially for schools without large policy teams) -Are OK with debate being more of a game than a public discussion   Our school does not have a very strong policy team so I won't go in depth here, since I don't know enough about it.   Lincoln-Douglas (LD) LD is similar to policy and growing more similar. However, its main difference is that it involves one-on-one debating and the speech times are significantly shorter. Like Policy, you have to be very dedicated. I’ve noticed that the LDers on my team end up doing more work than Policyers because the standard of evidence quality is extremely high, understanding dense philosophy is required, and recycling generic evidence found years ago is useless.   In fact, even the academic “star students†struggled with keeping up. I had a kid once who was very bright. As a middle schooler, he did Parliamentary debate in SoCal and had straight A’s. He was ahead of the game in middle school, a grade ahead in science, and all without trying. Even high school was a breeze, and in his freshman and sophomore years he excelled in LD. But in his junior year, he just couldn’t keep up. His performance in LD dropped – he stopped “clearing†into elimination rounds, and though his GPA stayed above 4.0, it still dropped half a point. It was sad. So I encouraged him to try Public Forum, which is what I’ll get to next. He did pretty well in Pufo, but it would have been much better if he had just started with Pufo, in which case he would have had 2 more years of experience. If you want to be a top debater, starting as a freshman and sticking with one activity isn't just an extra advantage; it's necessary. Any later, and you've fallen behind the curve.   LD is good for people who: -Are looking to be very competitive -Are prepared to go to summer debate camps -Are willing to do LOTS of work -Are academically very strong (Balance is important, and it’s not smart to let your grades suffer for an activity that is, after all, an extra-curricular) -Focus more on your knowledge of the topic than your speaking skills -Are OK without a teammate to work with -Are OK with the judges being a little counter-intuitive. LD is a philosophy debate, so if you would hate to have a judge not understand why sadistic torture is bad because your philosophy didn’t say that, it’s not right for you.   Public Forum (Pufo) Pufo is my personal favorite. Although the speech times seem a little weird, they end up making for fun and interesting debates. Topics switch every month and are about current events. Speaking skills matter, but judges don’t seem to be arbitrary; they consider the arguments each debater made to evaluate who won and lost. There are teams of two, but I’ve seen very successful teams where one was clearly better than the other. Pufo is great because it keeps kids up to date with current knowledge. It involves enough work for students not to be bored but not too much where you're in over your head.   As for the team problem, most coaches don’t force their kids into teams. There’s always that one kid who’s also looking for a partner. Also, a lot of successful Pufo teams involve an underclassman paired with an upperclassman. After they graduate, other people get better. That’s the system my team uses for incoming freshmen we expect to be very competitive and successful. Also, a lot of people who don't like teams say that because they think everyone is worse than them. But trust me, as a freshman there are going to be plenty of people better than you. Even if you did great debating in a middle school league, there are sophomores, juniors, and seniors who would be willing to team up with you if you're really that good.   Also, in the LD and Policy circuit, Pufo has taken on a reputation of being inferior. By no means is this true. Pufo is just as good as LD and Policy, if not better. Elite Pufo rounds are just as nuanced as elite policy rounds. Also, topics are more current, so they are more relevant, interesting, have better evidence, and all in all makes for higher quality debate.   Good for people who: -Are looking to be competitive (It's basically just as competitive as LD and Policy - there is a TOC for it) -Are good at speaking -Have time to do some work but do not have unlimited time -Prioritize academics over extra-curriculars or want to find a balance between them, and may struggle with academics later on in high school -Work well in teams (which ends up being not that important; I've paired antisocial kids before and they succeeded) -Care about current events   The last bit of this I noticed after seeing how successful my different students performed in debate. I’ve taught many students and seen several classes of students go through their entire high school career. -Kids who dislike mathematics tend to be more successful in Public Forum. LD and Policy are very technical and people with more analytical and less creative minds succeed in them. -Kids who have activities they do for fun are better suited for Public Forum or Parliamentary (this only exists in California and Oregon, so I won't talk about it here). Here I mean doing activities actually for fun, not for college, like playing video games, hanging out with friends, biking, paintballing, cooking, etc. You won't have time to relax by junior year if you do policy or LD. Even some PuFo kids are crunched for time in junior year.     Making the Choice For most people, I'd suggest Pufo. If you’re not breezing through middle school, it's right for you, the rest will be too much work. If you are better at speaking like a normal person, it's right for you, LD and Policy rounds require you to spread.   As an added benefit, I think colleges view success in Pufo as more important than equal success in Policy or LD. College admissions officers probably don't care that you can spew 500 words a minute, but they do care if you are a good public speaker and can communicate well. Sure, critical thinking skills are important in Policy, but they're there just as much, if not more, in Pufo. Since you have less evidence, the debate becomes less of throwing lots of statistics at each other, and more of trying to convince the judge. That means Pufo fosters more critical thinking than Policy as well. Sure, you might be losing out on learning a different Master's Thesis every year, but the benefits of doing Pufo definitely outweigh that.     Conclusion I think Pufo is right for most people. For kids on California or Oregon, Parliamentary is another great option that you should look into. LD and Policy are right for students who are not good at connecting with the judge, or students who have plenty of time on their hands and breezed through all of middle school. For these kids, Policy is a great option for kids who like to work in pairs, and LD is good if you like philosophy more than the topic. Again, I'm no expert on Policy so choosing between the two can be difficult. All in all, people should do Public Forum, with a few exceptions.

DebateCoach2006

DebateCoach2006

×