Jump to content
tennisguy1313

Case Book

Recommended Posts

um

 

if this was a "debate"

this would be called a "concession"

 

and I don't see how you answer the fact that this appears to answer all your arguments about research

maybe you did, but the paragraph got a little convoluted after this sentence

 

it's the classic Dilbert idea: work smarter, not harder

no, it's really not. tie it back into the first paragraph i wrote on why the aff shouldn't have to be the only side hearing specific args against their case that have been scripted pre-round. and this answers zero of my arguments about research--you're equivocating more specific with better which is really only true from very few standpoints within a round; perhaps it's better from the judge's perspective, but that's irrelevant; this isn't about pleasing the judge. to win, yes, you would be better off with more specific arguments. but i'd argue this creates a neg bias. as i argued already. which doesn't "get answered" by this "concession".

Rather than responding to that incredibly long post, and going line by line (which i'm tempted to do because there are some things you say that i really disagree with), I'm going to propose a couple things that i think we can both agree on:

 

1) teams that don't do research USUALLY lose... regardless of a casebook

 

2) casebooks allow teams to narrow down research topics, allowing more in-depth/specific research

 

3) if KS is considering a casebook, they should at least do it right; by that, i mean disclose both affirmative and negative strategies

 

 

But in the end, i'm not going to put any more time/thought into this discussion because i know that regardless of who i convince or what i prove on this mere website, the fact is that a casebook will never really happen in Kansas. casebooks have no place in a community that values presentation over substance. if i were still debating, or if i still cared like i used to, i would be saddened by that. but i'll let someone else take up the cause.

i agree with your first point. i agree with your second point in theory, not in practice. and i tentatively agree with your third point, given certain conditions on the governance of the casebook, but i don't see it ever happening.

 

i'm well aware we're likely to disagree on several things; i don't mean any of it personally. i'm just tired of seeing the other side of this underrepresented. it is good for the college and circuit, probably. i personally don't think it's good here.

 

and doesn't damien's success with a case despite a casebook kind of prove that the casebook is no more a check on squirrelly shit than good debating is? the only way a casebook would help you against damien is if you had their 2ac topicality blocks. but anyway.

Lazy people are forced to work or get weeded out when there is a case list. It rewards effort for paying attention to the arguments being run and writing the blocks.

 

If there is not disclosure, lazy people are rewarded because they can hide behind squirrely cases, super generics from a handbook, and never update files.

super generics and unupdated files don't equate to wins. squirrelly cases are only successful if you block the hell out of topicality or switch squirrelly cases on a regular basis; each of which require work. so i think either way, the lazy teams are gonna lose. the casebook really provides no check against this.

case list doesn't assume aff bias exists, neg strats are disclosed/posted soon if an affirmative asks after the round to see 1nc shells.

uh sure, but this causes several functional problems. affs have to disclose pre-tournament; negs don't disclose at all. plus, functionally, i don't think this will ever happen in kansas. and i don't think it's a long shot.

 

reciprocal disclosure solves, aff gets 1nc shells, learns block tricks. few and far between sounds like a terrible way to say every aff round they get a benefit. at least this way the aff will have more to say to new disads than a few analytical card pimps and random impact defense or generic turns that probably aren't specific.

if there was perfectly reciprocal disclosure, yes that would solve. but if there was anything less than completely reciprocal disclosure, aff would be fucked. and perfectly reciprocal implies several things that aren't upheld in the model i'm hearing of this hypothetical aff-and-neg disclosure.

 

sorry, i'd rather hear a specific disad/cp than consult nato

i don't care what the judge would rather hear :) that has nothing to do with why a casebook should exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, if research destroys your aff, then you've got a bad aff. You should research the negative side of an affirmative when you are evaluating whether or not it is a viable argument.

 

So get a better aff, research the negative's positions (which you could find on a casebook), and then maybe win some debates.

 

I also find it ironic that you are being arrogant with kaut.

 

There is always going to be evidence out there that can destroy your aff. The bottomline is that you shouldn't have to be given an aff. case in order to make it an interesting debate. You might as well concede, because a majority of people think what you are advocating will never pan out. BTW I can be arrogant with whoever I choose, Kaut can bring up all the bs reasons as to why a case book would work, but it's losing cause.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is always going to be evidence out there that can destroy your aff. The bottomline is that you shouldn't have to be given an aff. case in order to make it an interesting debate. You might as well concede, because a majority of people think what you are advocating will never pan out. BTW I can be arrogant with whoever I choose, Kaut can bring up all the bs reasons as to why a case book would work, but it's losing cause.

 

1. Answer pre-round disclosure. My argument is that it is really hard to run stuff with 5 minutes of prep and adequately answer everything and make good block choices. Every team in Kansas now seems to run an XO, it takes time since there is so much offense on it, yet with 5 minutes of prep you already probably needed a minute to get a few link and case turns so there you have 4 minutes of prep (most teams in Kansas seem to need 2 minutes now which makes it even harder for them) for the block compared to what would normally be 8 on the circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same goes for the negative in keeping their strats a secret. If both participate, they cancel each other out.

 

No, they really don't. Also you omitted the part where I mentioned that a lot of college teams don't disclose when breaking a new aff.

 

 

This doesn't provide a stable locus for research. Also, it is inefficient to try to track people down. Once tracked down, those people usually forgot (assuming they are even willing to tell you). Simply asking people doesn't foster the specific research that a casebook does. If you ask, what did the neg run, someone will usually say "Capitalism K" and will have forgotten everything else, or probably didn't even understand the argument. With a casebook, you know what their alternative is, their link story, whether or not they have a text to the alternative, etc etc etc. You tell me what allows for better preparation--should be obvious.

 

 

Too many in KS have these maudlin, nostalgic sentiments about the "old fashion way."

 

With the communication available this day and age old fashion social networking can be just as valuable as a casebook. You don't have to know the exact specific cards to be able to research effectively.

 

 

You have to evaluate arguments in the game. Neg says you link, aff says no link. Who is right? What is true? Not only do you have to make truth assessments internally, but I think debate as an educational vehicle allows individuals to formulate opinions about the world based on their research.

 

But this is really beside the point.

 

Assessing a link to a k or a disad in a debate round and "truth" are not the same thing. Again there are not these incredible link cards out there waiting to be found if only a case list were made.

 

 

"Scripting" debate is also inevitable. You write down your arguments during prep time. Few people just make shit up when they are speaking, and if they do, it is usually cave-man like incoherent babble. Casebooks just allow you to think through your arguments more ahead of time, and then to find evidence to support them.

 

Again I reject the notion that casebooks are key to education, they do certainly help, but they are not the only way.

 

I'm curious as to what tournaments you were judging at. Either teams have been lazy, this topic sucks, or you got unlucky with the teams you had to watch. I have a really hard time believing that no one deviates from camps.

 

On the macro scale, sure, research hasn't been hurt. That's because there are like 3 or 4 high school case lists currently in operation. Unfortunately, that's where the Kansan Luddites abstain.

 

I've judged about half of the teams with DCI bids so far this year. This topic is pretty small relative to others.

 

 

This is just flat out wrong. Last year, Damien CG ran the most untopical aff. It was have the US fund Chinese Medical Teams to go to Africa. Every single debate vs them was about topicality. And let me tell you, they lost very, very few debates on topicality because they read about 30 cards supporting their interpretation.

 

Don't equate bad case with bad team. This was a bad case, but a great team. The fact was that if you had not prepared a case negative to their specific aff you were going to lose. No question.

 

And yes, Damien participated in the high school casebook.

 

Ok so Damien had a squirrely case, they participated in a casebook, and no one could beat them.... how does a casebook solve for this again? I don't get what your point is. There have been many examples over the years of great KS teams that, after the 1st tournament everyone knew what they ran on aff but no one could beat them. Smart teams pick good affs that are difficult to beat. YOU were the one conflating squirrely cases with bad teams.

 

 

1) Make participation in the casebook mandatory.

2) 10 Years? That's weird because I personally called three people out in my time. Maybe people aren't being called out, because no one knows they are cheating??? Maybe a casebook allows people to know if they are cheating or not?? And thus, we are back to my argument.

 

I'm not saying that cheating doesn't occur, I'm using my anecdotal experience to show that it's not a widespread problem that we need to build a policy around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is always going to be evidence out there that can destroy your aff. The bottomline is that you shouldn't have to be given an aff. case in order to make it an interesting debate. You might as well concede, because a majority of people think what you are advocating will never pan out. BTW I can be arrogant with whoever I choose, Kaut can bring up all the bs reasons as to why a case book would work, but it's losing cause.

 

Wait what? You think that there is a perfect case neg to EVERY aff? This is why disads, counterplans, and kritiks exist, you can't win on case neg alone. I run brownfields, ive looked at the neg, I still think plan is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait what? You think that there is a perfect case neg to EVERY aff? This is why disads, counterplans, and kritiks exist, you can't win on case neg alone. I run brownfields, ive looked at the neg, I still think plan is a good idea.

 

see below

 

can we get a kansas ban on tennis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they really don't. Also you omitted the part where I mentioned that a lot of college teams don't disclose when breaking a new aff.

 

 

 

 

With the communication available this day and age old fashion social networking can be just as valuable as a casebook. You don't have to know the exact specific cards to be able to research effectively.

 

 

 

 

Assessing a link to a k or a disad in a debate round and "truth" are not the same thing. Again there are not these incredible link cards out there waiting to be found if only a case list were made.

 

 

 

 

Again I reject the notion that casebooks are key to education, they do certainly help, but they are not the only way.

 

 

 

I've judged about half of the teams with DCI bids so far this year. This topic is pretty small relative to others.

 

 

 

 

Ok so Damien had a squirrely case, they participated in a casebook, and no one could beat them.... how does a casebook solve for this again? I don't get what your point is. There have been many examples over the years of great KS teams that, after the 1st tournament everyone knew what they ran on aff but no one could beat them. Smart teams pick good affs that are difficult to beat. YOU were the one conflating squirrely cases with bad teams.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that cheating doesn't occur, I'm using my anecdotal experience to show that it's not a widespread problem that we need to build a policy around.

 

 

1. A new aff encourages teams to research more when they don't have to disclose it, plus the benefit of disclosure is that teams no you're aff so they have responses and you write better blocks when you have had zero rounds there are many arguments you have not prepped out.

 

2. You don't have to know exact cards but it helps. Knowing who the author's are for teams that read an 8 minutes of warming bad RPS aff is really key as a lot of the climate debate is about the intent of authors and the claims those authors make (Idso, IPCC).

 

3. True on that level, but if I have exact plan text what is better is that good PIC's can be found. You can PIC out of the smallest things like EPA regulations on CAFO affs just by reading the policy because you have the plan text.

 

4. I'll agree they are not the only way and there are a lot of other steps we could take, but this is a great one to take.

 

5. I think the reason is a lot of teams are running the same aff. About 50% of teams seem to run Coal to liquid, a lot run RPS, and a ton run SPS. Those are the major affs yet there are a whole host of differences between each aff.

 

6. It helps tell you what their T responses will be. This year Damien has a whole T answer to nuclear isn't topical in the 1AC that indicts the USFG definition that excludes nuclear, and they read a lot of other cards. If I didn't know about this my whole strategy against them might have been T (because they're a really good squad) and not realizing they would indict the prefered definition and run an entire 1AC contention would have really hurt the 1NC and block planning.

 

7. I also agree that cheating is rare but it's a good way to stop it, plus there are other benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait what? You think that there is a perfect case neg to EVERY aff? This is why disads, counterplans, and kritiks exist, you can't win on case neg alone. I run brownfields, ive looked at the neg, I still think plan is a good idea.

I'm not saying D/As, CPs, and K's (which are pretty much dead by now, due to the huge influx of lay judges) don't enhance a debate, I'm just think it's pretty ridiculous that you need a heads up to prepare against what schools are running. You're just lazy and frankly you probably belong in the novice division if you're advocating a case book.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Answer pre-round disclosure. My argument is that it is really hard to run stuff with 5 minutes of prep and adequately answer everything and make good block choices. Every team in Kansas now seems to run an XO, it takes time since there is so much offense on it, yet with 5 minutes of prep you already probably needed a minute to get a few link and case turns so there you have 4 minutes of prep (most teams in Kansas seem to need 2 minutes now which makes it even harder for them) for the block compared to what would normally be 8 on the circuit.

 

I'll agree that it's hard to address every issue with only 5 minutes of prep, and we probably need more prep time. But once again; If you want to be lazy and not do the research go back to the novice division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying D/As, CPs, and K's (which are pretty much dead by now, due to the huge influx of lay judges) don't enhance a debate, I'm just think it's pretty ridiculous that you need a heads up to prepare against what schools are running. You're just lazy and frankly you probably belong in the novice division if you're advocating a case book.

 

you are a fucking idiot

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying D/As, CPs, and K's (which are pretty much dead by now, due to the huge influx of lay judges) don't enhance a debate, I'm just think it's pretty ridiculous that you need a heads up to prepare against what schools are running. You're just lazy and frankly you probably belong in the novice division if you're advocating a case book.

jesus i don't even know where to begin...

 

please, give me ONE reason why a casebook would hurt the quality of debate. Yeah we could put together a sweet strat, but how would i get that put together? Doing research. But your first sentence makes it pretty apparent i'm wasting my time even reading your posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. A new aff encourages teams to research more when they don't have to disclose it, plus the benefit of disclosure is that teams no you're aff so they have responses and you write better blocks when you have had zero rounds there are many arguments you have not prepped out.

 

2. You don't have to know exact cards but it helps. Knowing who the author's are for teams that read an 8 minutes of warming bad RPS aff is really key as a lot of the climate debate is about the intent of authors and the claims those authors make (Idso, IPCC).

 

3. True on that level, but if I have exact plan text what is better is that good PIC's can be found. You can PIC out of the smallest things like EPA regulations on CAFO affs just by reading the policy because you have the plan text.

 

4. I'll agree they are not the only way and there are a lot of other steps we could take, but this is a great one to take.

 

5. I think the reason is a lot of teams are running the same aff. About 50% of teams seem to run Coal to liquid, a lot run RPS, and a ton run SPS. Those are the major affs yet there are a whole host of differences between each aff.

 

6. It helps tell you what their T responses will be. This year Damien has a whole T answer to nuclear isn't topical in the 1AC that indicts the USFG definition that excludes nuclear, and they read a lot of other cards. If I didn't know about this my whole strategy against them might have been T (because they're a really good squad) and not realizing they would indict the prefered definition and run an entire 1AC contention would have really hurt the 1NC and block planning.

 

7. I also agree that cheating is rare but it's a good way to stop it, plus there are other benefits.

 

I understand fully the benefits for the neg, but I also understand the hesitancy some affs would have to disclose... it's a no win for the aff. The benefit of "improving your 2ac blocks" are far outweighed by the risk of catching a team unprepared.

 

If people want to disclose, I'm all for it because I agree that it makes that it generally makes for better debates. Debate is competitive, and a lot of people would rather win an ugly round than lose a beautiful one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand fully the benefits for the neg, but I also understand the hesitancy some affs would have to disclose... it's a no win for the aff.

 

Sure, i'll admit that it favors the negative. But the beauty of switch-side debate is that everyone gets to be negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So really no one's going to disclose? Kansas debaters blow. If someone knows how to set up one of those free ftp's, I'll make password protected case book.
Go die.
Wait what? You think that there is a perfect case neg to EVERY aff? This is why disads, counterplans, and kritiks exist, you can't win on case neg alone. I run brownfields, ive looked at the neg, I still think plan is a good idea.

see below

can we get a kansas ban on tennis?

...i'm really not kidding about this one. i feel it's warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...i'm really not kidding about this one. i feel it's warranted.

 

 

I can kind of see why you wouldn't like the first to posts you quote me on but what is your problem with the third one? The Ozmanks said that if given enough prep time, someone would be able to destroy your case. Do you understand why this is a stupid argument? It means aside from generics which I will have every round, given enough prep, I can research a perfect case neg, that no aff is ever a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesus i don't even know where to begin...

 

please, give me ONE reason why a casebook would hurt the quality of debate. Yeah we could put together a sweet strat, but how would i get that put together? Doing research. But your first sentence makes it pretty apparent i'm wasting my time even reading your posts

Once again, if you put a casebook together you're cheating. There is no surprise element whatsoever. Are you guys really this fucking stupid all the time. Seriously do you not look at your ballots, refer to the school code list, and look at your flow to see what certain schools are running. That's all you have to do (put a neg together for it), hell if you don't do it, you deserve to get your ass handed to you every round.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll probably be mocked for even posting on this “discussion”, and I’m sure there are negative consequences to me that I’m just not envisioning, but I have a question that perhaps someone from the pro casebook side can answer for me.

 

It seems the general impact that you are striving for is a better debate. The link to the better debate is more time and more research. If I’ve over simplified this, I apologize.

 

This same argument could be used for increasing prep time from 5 to 8 minutes, correct? It seems Kaut is making this point clear. The more time I have to prepare, the better my arguments and strategy will be, correct?

 

So, my real question is, if more time for research and preparation is better for debate, why do we limit it at all?

 

I could be wrong, but given 25 minutes of prep, I could make a much better speech than if I had just 5 or 8 minutes. If you handed me your entire speech, in written form, a month before we were to debate, I can have much more detailed and specific answers, which would make the debate “better”. And, how about if I give the Aff a written copy of my entire 1NC, so they could research and have better 2AC answers? And to make things even better, we could have 2AC’s then give the negative an entire written copy of the entire 2AC, so the block would be even better yet! And during this entire time, we could have open CX to really clarify each and every detail!! Now, that would be some good debate!

 

Personally, I’ve always been a fan of just showing up and debating whatever you are confronted with. I like when kids work on their skills to think on their feet and be original. I’m reminded something that one of the greatest coaches ever told me in a lecture at UMKC, “I’m not scared when the negative team hears the 1st sentence of my 1AC and pulls out a big folder full of evidence against my case. I’m scared when they hear the 1st sentence of my case, look scared as they realize they have nothing, and then a light bulb shines above their heads and the scurry to put together arguments. Nothing is scarier than a team that thinks during the round.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“I’m not scared when the negative team hears the 1st sentence of my 1AC and pulls out a big folder full of evidence against my case. I’m scared when they hear the 1st sentence of my case, look scared as they realize they have nothing, and then a light bulb shines above their heads and the scurry to put together arguments. Nothing is scarier than a team that thinks during the round.”

Dr. Ede Warner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can kind of see why you wouldn't like the first to posts you quote me on but what is your problem with the third one? The Ozmanks said that if given enough prep time, someone would be able to destroy your case. Do you understand why this is a stupid argument? It means aside from generics which I will have every round, given enough prep, I can research a perfect case neg, that no aff is ever a good idea.

 

do not patronize me. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’ll probably be mocked for even posting on this “discussion”, and I’m sure there are negative consequences to me that I’m just not envisioning, but I have a question that perhaps someone from the pro casebook side can answer for me.

 

It seems the general impact that you are striving for is a better debate. The link to the better debate is more time and more research. If I’ve over simplified this, I apologize.

 

This same argument could be used for increasing prep time from 5 to 8 minutes, correct? It seems Kaut is making this point clear. The more time I have to prepare, the better my arguments and strategy will be, correct?

 

So, my real question is, if more time for research and preparation is better for debate, why do we limit it at all?

 

I could be wrong, but given 25 minutes of prep, I could make a much better speech than if I had just 5 or 8 minutes. If you handed me your entire speech, in written form, a month before we were to debate, I can have much more detailed and specific answers, which would make the debate “better”. And, how about if I give the Aff a written copy of my entire 1NC, so they could research and have better 2AC answers? And to make things even better, we could have 2AC’s then give the negative an entire written copy of the entire 2AC, so the block would be even better yet! And during this entire time, we could have open CX to really clarify each and every detail!! Now, that would be some good debate!

 

Personally, I’ve always been a fan of just showing up and debating whatever you are confronted with. I like when kids work on their skills to think on their feet and be original. I’m reminded something that one of the greatest coaches ever told me in a lecture at UMKC, “I’m not scared when the negative team hears the 1st sentence of my 1AC and pulls out a big folder full of evidence against my case. I’m scared when they hear the 1st sentence of my case, look scared as they realize they have nothing, and then a light bulb shines above their heads and the scurry to put together arguments. Nothing is scarier than a team that thinks during the round.”

 

 

1. I think 8 minutes is a much better amount of prep time in Kansas. When there are rounds with conditional arguments and muoltiple worlds sorting through them takes time, I propose either adding disclosure or 8 minutes of prep to check back the lack of disclosure because it takes time to pull out 1NC arguments. We obviously limit prep time so we can run a tournament in the course of two days, and anymore than 8 makes it very hard to get a tournament run on time.

 

2. I'm advocating having disclosure of 1AC's and some negative disclosure, common negative positions. I think the first step though is dislcosing plan text and advantages before the debate. The debate then occurs when we each have access. The debate is focused around a starting debate, the worst debate is when a team has no answers to certain DA's, this inevitably could happen when you break a new DA encouraging more research. A 2AC, and 2NC does hurt some of the actual debate. Yet, having common 1NC's and 1AC's ahead of time allows us to have better debates as we have a starting point to the debate, we make the end though which most people feel is the most important part.

 

3. I like working on your feet but it's really hard with 5 minutes of prep to not just pull out consult NATO, politics, and very limited case defense, and some other really generic DA's (every team in Kansas likes the Iraq backstopping DA, and liked dependency last year for this reason).

 

As for this being lazy and novice like it isn't at all. I mean, I'm not sure who you are, but it requires more research. If I have more cases I research more specific PIC's again the reference to the CAFO's aff example I give before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the general impact that you are striving for is a better debate. The link to the better debate is more time and more research. If I’ve over simplified this, I apologize.

 

This same argument could be used for increasing prep time from 5 to 8 minutes, correct? It seems Kaut is making this point clear. The more time I have to prepare, the better my arguments and strategy will be, correct?

 

So, my real question is, if more time for research and preparation is better for debate, why do we limit it at all?

 

I could be wrong, but given 25 minutes of prep, I could make a much better speech than if I had just 5 or 8 minutes. If you handed me your entire speech, in written form, a month before we were to debate, I can have much more detailed and specific answers, which would make the debate “better”. And, how about if I give the Aff a written copy of my entire 1NC, so they could research and have better 2AC answers? And to make things even better, we could have 2AC’s then give the negative an entire written copy of the entire 2AC, so the block would be even better yet! And during this entire time, we could have open CX to really clarify each and every detail!! Now, that would be some good debate!

 

Personally, I’ve always been a fan of just showing up and debating whatever you are confronted with. I like when kids work on their skills to think on their feet and be original.

Debaters like to use extreme, totalizing, examples to prove their point. You've given the extreme of my argument. Now I can give you the extreme of your argument:

Why do we have ANY prep time? We should just give speech after speech after speech! That would force people to think on their feet. Actually, you know what? Why don't we just get rid of evidence all together! That way people have to formulate all of their arguments on their own?

Obviously, neither what I just packaged your argument to be nor what you packaged my argument to be are desirable. I agree with Kaut in thinking that 5 minutes of prep is entirely insufficient, but that is a completely different debate for a completely different time.

Casebooks allow for debaters to finetune how they think about their arguments, how they want to frame particular points, find evidence to support their points, etc.

They allow for more targeted, specific research which in turn provides for a better, more clash-filled debate.

I’m reminded something that one of the greatest coaches ever told me in a lecture at UMKC, “I’m not scared when the negative team hears the 1st sentence of my 1AC and pulls out a big folder full of evidence against my case. I’m scared when they hear the 1st sentence of my case, look scared as they realize they have nothing, and then a light bulb shines above their heads and the scurry to put together arguments. Nothing is scarier than a team that thinks during the round.”

 

That's a great quote. However, casebooks don't prevent lightbulbs from going off in young, brilliant debaters' heads. Quite the opposite. Maybe instead of a lightbulb going off in-round, the light bulb goes off at 3AM when a squad is hunched off their Mountain Dew-ridden desks, with their facecs illuminated by the glow of their addicting laptops. At that moment, one debater after sifting through a teams posted 1AC cites, leans back in his chair and says to the rest of the team, "I've got it." I can tell you I've had plenty of those moments, and they are what made me love debate.

 

Furthermore, I really just don't think that what you are getting at even pans out in the real world like you are saying it will. I can't even count the number of times when I tried to make an analytical and I had it perfectly packaged in my head but I couldn't translate it into words. The result wasn't some coup de grace, or a silver bullet that made my opponent concede. Far from it. Those are the times when on the van ride home from a tournament I rethink the argument a dozen times and finally come up with how I want to execute it next time. Not to mention, I can't even count the number of times that I thought I had some dope analytical and I went for it and after the debate the judge says to me, "That was a good argument, but I really felt you needed evidence for it."

Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Ede Warner?

 

Phil Volen

quoting Ede Warner, let alone calling him one of the greatest coaches ever

to support an argument to eliminate casebooks

in Kansas debate

 

 

now that would just be twisted. if it's true..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, if you put a casebook together you're cheating. There is no surprise element whatsoever. Are you guys really this fucking stupid all the time. Seriously do you not look at your ballots, refer to the school code list, and look at your flow to see what certain schools are running. That's all you have to do (put a neg together for it), hell if you don't do it, you deserve to get your ass handed to you every round.

 

So in the end wouldn't this be the same amount of "cheating" that a casebook would be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...