Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I live in a very traditional portion of West Texas where no one accepts progressive forms of debate. We run simple K's for "more progressive" judges and really explain them and impact them out but they never seems to get it. In fact, we lost a very important round because the judges didn't seem to understand a basic Cap K. How can we try to make it so judges understand what we're saying and maybe make our circuit more progressive? 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut some uniqueness and read it as a disad on case maybe? I think that parent judges (at least in my region) have a hard time accepting ideas foreign to their own-- i think specifity might also be best-- you increase this sector which is bad, or things of the sort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain it better, and choose your battles. Some Ks (such as cap) tend to ideologically polarize audiences, and are a bit harder to explain. If you must, focus on the why question (instead of saying capitalism causes war/extinction/environmental collapse/whatever and telling the judge why that's bad, explain the missteps that would be taken under a capitalist system to ensure those impacts).

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

topic specific k's are more likely to win too. like, the argument that free market development in Latin America causes conflict is probably more intuitive than "THE AFF IS CAUGHT IN THE COORDINATES OF CAPITALISM THE ALT IS TO SCREAM HEROD 10"

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is actually one of the few fields of debate, I can do a really good job at helping you with. 

  1. KNOW YOUR K'S. Read the same one or two every round. If you can't explain it too your  four year old niece or nephew, then you shouldn't be reading it in West Texas.
  2. READ THE K EVERY ROUND. So, empiricism proves this. Me and Lexi run a K aff for the majority of the year, and the 2NR is usually Neitzche with it sometimes being queer theory or anthro. I know it sounds crazy, but tab rooms start to notice. We are given the progressive judges almost all the time, because people "know what we pull". In fact, except for round one of NFL every other judge was down for or really liked the K. Also, schools like Greenhill and Colleyville proove this back. Because even thought they were doing it generations ago, they we're the most progressive debaters on their local circut. And people quickly realized.
  3. Read the K - More people start reading the K. I know this for a fact.
  4. Be blunt as hell before round - ASK YOUR JUDGE. "If I set you in a framework will you vote off the role of the ballot?" "Do you view consequentalism as the biggest impact?" "Do you have much experience with the Neitzche debate? Anthro Debate? etc
  5. If it's a lay judge - go for anthro.
  6. Don't ever fucking run the cap K - people have stereotypes about it. 
  7. Try not reading FW on every K aff you see - you'd be surprised at how much community standards effect judges.​
  8. Prep over views, under views, and thesis's to your K's. It helps the non progressive judge understand you.
  9. Try and get the team you are facing to engage the K - if they read K bad, or consequentalism, or pragmatism then yeah in WT you may get voted down. Most teams in WT want progressive debate - and are just to scared to say so.

If you have more questions, feel free to message me.

Edited by thatladlogan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be prepared to have a judge say on the ballot "I didn't understand the K/I didn't agree with the K". That will happen a lot. It is possible to win with a variety of kritiks in West Texas (ask Logan), but you need to be able to understand 1) what your kritik is saying and 2) how to simplify the kritik in about three or four sentences, i.e. "The affirmative plan does ________. That is bad because _________. You should vote negative because __________." Overviews and underviews will be your friend. A lot of parent judges and judges in West Texas are more likely to listen to (and understand) it that way. Like Logan said, make sure your judges will be ideologically predisposed to listening to the content of the K. For example, in my experience, judges in West Texas don't like the cap K because they're more economically conservative and therefore think that capitalism is inherently good, despite how much literature says otherwise. There are more judges coming into West Texas who do know how to evaluate anything you want to run like myself or a lot of college judges, so don't give up. If you need any help with anything, don't hesitate to contact me because I'm all about making debate in West Texas more progressive. 

  • Upvote 3

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...