Jump to content
georgebushsdogpaintings

Texas Uil State - Help!

Recommended Posts

Me and my partner have recently qualified for UIL state in a couple of weeks. We think we have a chance of breaking, but we need some help with good stuff to run. The teams around here are rather stock-issues, so we are just looking for some tips to run as negative, and maybe some good strategies for our Port Security aff.

 

If you have anything to say that can be remotely helpful, please post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the easiest thing to do is win on case turns.. judges universally like case debates and having a politics disad on the side would be the best strat,.  try immigration reform for politics... that is if its still alive by the tournament.... if not i favor the russia food price da which u can find on ndca and then make some tweaks... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the easiest thing to do is win on case turns.. judges universally like case debates and having a politics disad on the side would be the best strat,.  try immigration reform for politics... that is if its still alive by the tournament.... if not i favor the russia food price da which u can find on ndca and then make some tweaks... 

 

Thanks! I've never even heard of russia food price DA or immigration reform, I'll definitely look for those..

Also, I just realized this is (probably) not the right section for this thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I competed in UIL States last year (Texas) and yeah it's all centered around Stock issues. The main thing we hit was the funding and timeframe arguemnts. As long as you pre-block out these arguments I see no problem for your competition! And good luck to you! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly suggest you get together a robust T file.  Topicality at UIL can be incredibly successful if you do it the right way.  This strategy has been used to win the 5A state tournament at least 4 times to my knowledge.  Here's the trick:

 

1. Make a big T shell that defines as many words as you can think of.  Include something for USFG (something useful for A-spec if need by), substantially, increase, its, investment, transportation infrastructure, "in", etc.  You want to define about 6-8 terms.

 

2. Create a broad sweep of standards and give a sentence for each of them.  Limits, predictability, ground, XT, FX T; all of these need to be explained and front loaded in the 1NC.  Most judges you will receive think you need to put all your T arguments in the 1NC, so establish your posts early.

 

3. Make multiple arguments for why T is a voting issue.  Fairness, education, role of the ballot = stock issues, a-priori, whatever.  You can make more voting issues in the block/2NR, but explain why T should be an independent reason to vote negative, even if the case is good.  You have to set this up early to get the judge on board with the concept of T outweighing the case (something many might not be on board with immediately - some judges are not used to evaluating T debates).  

 

Notice that a robust violation section is not necessary in the 1NC.  You only need to defend your interpretations of the topic and establish your standards through that lens. The 2AC will make a counter-interpretation, and thus in the block you get to make your violation arguments contextual to that.  Say things like "the affirmative still doesn't meet words x, y, z in the resolution".  

 

In the 2NR I think it is still the right decision to only go for T.  Many people will tell you that you need to go for T and some case arguments or something like that, but I think in general the better approach is to just spend a lot of time in the 2NR explaining why T is different from other positions and comes before the case. You can easily win a T debate in UIL if you just stop making assumptions on what the judge knows.  Explain all the things you normally take for granted in a T debate, and ground your jargon in substance.  Your judges aren't stupid, they just aren't acquainted with the rules in the same way that you are.  That is to say, not that they have a worse or better understanding of debate, just a different one, so go to lengths to try to mediate those distinctions in vernacular.  Once you can do that, you can get any judge at the tournament.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly suggest you get together a robust T file.  Topicality at UIL can be incredibly successful if you do it the right way.  This strategy has been used to win the 5A state tournament at least 4 times to my knowledge.  Here's the trick:

 

1. Make a big T shell that defines as many words as you can think of.  Include something for USFG (something useful for A-spec if need by), substantially, increase, its, investment, transportation infrastructure, "in", etc.  You want to define about 6-8 terms.

 

2. Create a broad sweep of standards and give a sentence for each of them.  Limits, predictability, ground, XT, FX T; all of these need to be explained and front loaded in the 1NC.  Most judges you will receive think you need to put all your T arguments in the 1NC, so establish your posts early.

 

3. Make multiple arguments for why T is a voting issue.  Fairness, education, role of the ballot = stock issues, a-priori, whatever.  You can make more voting issues in the block/2NR, but explain why T should be an independent reason to vote negative, even if the case is good.  You have to set this up early to get the judge on board with the concept of T outweighing the case (something many might not be on board with immediately - some judges are not used to evaluating T debates).  

 

Notice that a robust violation section is not necessary in the 1NC.  You only need to defend your interpretations of the topic and establish your standards through that lens. The 2AC will make a counter-interpretation, and thus in the block you get to make your violation arguments contextual to that.  Say things like "the affirmative still doesn't meet words x, y, z in the resolution".  

 

In the 2NR I think it is still the right decision to only go for T.  Many people will tell you that you need to go for T and some case arguments or something like that, but I think in general the better approach is to just spend a lot of time in the 2NR explaining why T is different from other positions and comes before the case. You can easily win a T debate in UIL if you just stop making assumptions on what the judge knows.  Explain all the things you normally take for granted in a T debate, and ground your jargon in substance.  Your judges aren't stupid, they just aren't acquainted with the rules in the same way that you are.  That is to say, not that they have a worse or better understanding of debate, just a different one, so go to lengths to try to mediate those distinctions in vernacular.  Once you can do that, you can get any judge at the tournament.  

 

Thank you. This is probably the best response I'll get; me and my partner have never been huge on topicality, so we will definitely get together a nice T-file in the next week before state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they're reasonably topical like airport infrastructure. UIL judges especially in a/2a/3a will default on reason-ability, not just competing interpretations. 

  • Upvote 1

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...