Jump to content
blikebecks23

UIL vs. TFA

Recommended Posts

Alright, another thread about UIL vs. TFA by me. As the title says, are there any major differences (e.g. stylistic or otherwise) between UIL and TFA besides the obvious (no spreading, no critiques, no throwing expandos at opponents, etc)?

 

A few specific questions -

 

How are judges going to evaluate counterplans/theory? Is it legit?

 

I heard somewhere that I need to do a mini-overview before every constructive speech? Is this true?

 

Anything else would be helpful.

 

I'm going to the Princeton HS tourney, if it helps.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are judges going to evaluate counterplans/theory? Is it legit?

Usually counterplans will only be exceptable if they are non topical. Some judges will not evaluate them at all (strict stock issue judges). As for theory, it is much less accepted than in TFA. You might be able to get away with it sometimes but I wouldn't advise going for it alone in your last rebuttle.

 

I heard somewhere that I need to do a mini-overview before every constructive speech? Is this true?

 

No. You should give overviews all over but you don't need to do them before constructives. Some judges (especially older ones) in UIL like an overview of your aff harms plan and solvency on top, but they won't vote you down for not having it, they just like it.

Anything else would be helpful.

Hmmm...I would advise asking the judge if they were debaters. If not then you are more likely to benifit from using the Guide to Lay Judges. If they were former debaters then they should know some jargon (stock issues and what they mean at minimum). It is usually okay to ask for a judges paradigm. If they tell you they are a stock judge then it means you can win on defensive stock issue attacks (solvency takeouts, harms take outs, etc) and they want DA impacts to be in terms of stock issues (aka the impact turns case solvency by making the status quo worse, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, another thread about UIL vs. TFA by me. As the title says, are there any major differences (e.g. stylistic or otherwise) between UIL and TFA besides the obvious (no spreading, no critiques, no throwing expandos at opponents, etc)?

 

A few specific questions -

 

How are judges going to evaluate counterplans/theory? Is it legit?

 

I heard somewhere that I need to do a mini-overview before every constructive speech? Is this true?

 

Anything else would be helpful.

 

I'm going to the Princeton HS tourney, if it helps.

Before I say anything, I don't believe that there is a specific set of traits that each judge who adjudicates rounds at UIL tournament exhibits, similar to any TFA-qualifying tournament. However, in my experience with UIL tournaments for the past three years, I have noticed that the tournaments themselves seem to be a bit more conservative. That is not to say that kritiks are not allowed, nor is it to say that speed is banned, either. When is one simply reading too fast? When is an argument labelled a kritik as opposed to a disadvantage, case turn, or counterplan with a net-benefit?

 

I would keep a few things in mind.

 

Read at a pace that a friend who is not in debate would understand you. This requires practice, as you'll often go much faster than you should be going even when you think you've slowed down enough.

 

I have been to both UIL District qualifiers and the State tournament multiple times. We have run counterplans in some of our rounds and have not had a problem. I wouldn't recommend that you do so in all of your negative rounds, though. You really need to evaluate the situation depending on who you are debating and who the judge is. If it is a judge you know that is fine with counterplans, then go ahead and run one. Also, ask yourself if you can beat the opposing team without a counterplan. If so, why risk it? I will tell you that the consensus at UIL seems to be that topical counterplans are illegitimate, so I would keep that in mind.

 

As for overviews, just do what you regularly do. I always begin my 2NC with an overview, usually consisting of impact calculus. I did the same thing at UIL. Additionally, both my 2NR's and 2AR's began with an overview. Try to keep the overview under a minute, though. If it's longer, it might as well just be your speech, as you're not highlighting key arguments if you're spending nearly half of your speech just covering them and not other details. I would recommend that each argument you decide to extend in the negative block have an overview, and also that both the 2NR and 2AR begin with one. Other than that, I wouldn't bother.

 

Good luck. I hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certain ways to phrase things that allow you to get away with running normally taboo arguments in UIL. I used to run kritiks as "case turns"; the key is to phrase it as a case takeout, and to completely eliminate the kritik jargon. This is not to say that you can get away with running Nietzsche as an inherenty takeout, but you can still get some mileage out of certain arguments if you rephase them.

 

You may need to guide judges toward a decision in your favor. They sometimes have no experience with the topic, or with debate in general. This means you need: 1) ridiculous amounts of eye contact, not only to keep their attention, but so you can see if they're even paying attention, 2) even more ridiculous amounts of explanation, which means you need to spell out all the steps that go into your disad scenario happening (or whatever arguments you're running), and 3) a hell of a lot of dictating. I don't mean "please vote for us, judge, because they're really stupid, judge, and we win, judge." They might not flow, so tell them to take notes during your speech ("you should especially take note of this argument"), or make sure they look at specific arguments ("you might want to circle this argument" or "box in this argument"). You sort of need to go the extra mile to guide these judges into the proper decision.

 

But even after all that, you need some serious luck to go far at UIL. I'm not saying that anyone can do well at UIL -- you still need to be literate, able to speak, and I suppose fairly conscious. But doing all of those things doesn't in any way ensure that you'll win a UIL tournament.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, thanks everyone for the help so far. I have two more questions -

 

1. How would more conservative judges evaluate nuclear war impacts or impacts of similar magnitude?

 

2. Could you elaborate on how to guide judges to a decision? I mean, in addition to what you've already said, what are some other things I could do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They like it when you make your impacts sound realistic, as much as possible. Nuke war impacts are cool and sound more realistic than extinction (to the average UIL judge).

 

For convincing them how to vote, a lot of the time it is not wise to go for one argument in the 2NR. It is usually better to give them a couple different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How would more conservative judges evaluate nuclear war impacts or impacts of similar magnitude?

You're going to find judges who are more skeptical than the average debate judge. It's not that the average debate judge accepts that nuclear war is a probable scenario, but that they usually let the debaters decide the probability of the impact during the debate, whereas these judges may use their own criteria for evaluating impacts.

 

2. Could you elaborate on how to guide judges to a decision? I mean, in addition to what you've already said, what are some other things I could do?

One thing is to preempt something you think they're going to use against you when making a decision. For example (this is particularly applicable to the question before), you could say "I know this nuclear war scenario seems far-fetched, but you should buy our argument for blah blah various reasons."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ask your judge.

 

 

good advice, but i was asking so i could edit my aff case in advance to eliminate impact scenarios that would seem dubious to certain judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn your aff into an audio/visual experience that will delight the senses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the Princeton tournament when I was in high school, and from what I remember, it's a joke. I won it 2 times and trust me, it's not hard at all.

 

I do remember the critic pool being OK, though...it wasn't terrible anyway. We got some pretty good critiques and ballots if I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are certain ways to phrase things that allow you to get away with running normally taboo arguments in UIL. I used to run kritiks as "case turns"; the key is to phrase it as a case takeout, and to completely eliminate the kritik jargon. This is not to say that you can get away with running Nietzsche as an inherenty takeout, but you can still get some mileage out of certain arguments if you rephase them.

 

You may need to guide judges toward a decision in your favor. They sometimes have no experience with the topic, or with debate in general. This means you need: 1) ridiculous amounts of eye contact, not only to keep their attention, but so you can see if they're even paying attention, 2) even more ridiculous amounts of explanation, which means you need to spell out all the steps that go into your disad scenario happening (or whatever arguments you're running), and 3) a hell of a lot of dictating. I don't mean "please vote for us, judge, because they're really stupid, judge, and we win, judge." They might not flow, so tell them to take notes during your speech ("you should especially take note of this argument"), or make sure they look at specific arguments ("you might want to circle this argument" or "box in this argument"). You sort of need to go the extra mile to guide these judges into the proper decision.

 

But even after all that, you need some serious luck to go far at UIL. I'm not saying that anyone can do well at UIL -- you still need to be literate, able to speak, and I suppose fairly conscious. But doing all of those things doesn't in any way ensure that you'll win a UIL tournament.

 

I would listen to this guy. He won 5A UIL state, although he refuses to acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me: JUDGE I KNOW YOU SAID YOU DON'T VOTE ON DEFENSE BUT THIS DEFENSE IS SO GOOD IT'S ALMOST OFFENSE

Me: the one line in debate that will stick with me forever

Yao: IM SORRY BUT ITS TRUE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yao Yao didn't win UIL state . . . those were just . . . lost years . . . or days . . . or something . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basicly TFA is UIL on crack. And college is TFA on 'roids. If you have a younger judge in UIL they will usually accept Ks and other Args. Some judges are strait stock. Ask paradimes (sp?) and no crazy Dace Ks or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basicly TFA is UIL on crack. And college is TFA on 'roids. If you have a younger judge in UIL they will usually accept Ks and other Args. Some judges are strait stock. Ask paradimes (sp?) and no crazy Dace Ks or something along those lines.

 

The Dance K is the only real argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember UIL state last year when finals in 1A or 2A was decided by prompting?

 

Right before some speech during the road map the guy's partner goes "and the DA" so they disqualified them from the state tournament for prompting. lolls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...