Jump to content
TheBigDA

Crazy U.I.L. Policy Debate Help.

Recommended Posts

Alright, so as we all know policy debate in Texas is different, increasingly so in the UIL and TFA circuits. But unless you are from Texas you probably don't know the difference between UIL and "Crazy UIL".

 

Basically many west Texas debaters go to camp where they learn these "rules", such as:

  • Counterplans must solve for all harms of the Affirmative case.
  • T's must have in round abuse implications.
  • You must disclose your case to the negative team before the 1AC

And so on.

 

They look at my partner and I like we are crazy if we don't fit in this box, so my question to you is how do you refute these to a judge when they present these "rules"?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its part of the paradigm of the judge, you'd be better off adapting. However, if these are arguments that debaters spew from these camps, then just give theoretical reasons why its okay to read things like advantage counterplan's or T with a policy precison impact etc. it really just comes down to defending what your run. Tell the judges why you should read these arguments. 

 

Also, you probably should disclose what your aff is before the round starts unless your are reading a new affirmative

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its part of the paradigm of the judge, you'd be better off adapting. However, if these are arguments that debaters spew from these camps, then just give theoretical reasons why its okay to read things like advantage counterplan's or T with a policy precison impact etc. it really just comes down to defending what your run. Tell the judges why you should read these arguments. 

 

What are the arguments behind no advantage CPs?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so as we all know policy debate in Texas is different, increasingly so in the UIL and TFA circuits. But unless you are from Texas you probably don't know the difference between UIL and "Crazy UIL".

 

Basically many west Texas debaters go to camp where they learn these "rules", such as:

  • Counterplans must solve for all harms of the Affirmative case.
  • T's must have in round abuse implications.
  • You must disclose your case to the negative team before the 1AC

And so on.

 

They look at my partner and I like we are crazy if we don't fit in this box, so my question to you is how do you refute these to a judge when they present these "rules"?

 

They aren't rules, they're just strategic advice, really.

  • CP doesn't need to solve all the case - you just need to solve most of it, or at least their impacts - use the net beneficial DAs to outweigh the case if you're not PICing it (or otherwise solving every harm of theirs)

     

  • I mean, it can be good to be able to point at in-round abuse (and you can make an argument about the double-bind between the aff either linking to your DA or K or being untopical - but that only works with really generic links that they can probably beat anyway), but you can just say that it's about what they justify. Plus, the abuse is probably pre-round - the fact that you didn't read something that doesn't link (thanks to the abuse) doesn't mean that there was no abuse, just that there was so much that you legit had nothing to read vs. the aff as a result of their un-topical advocacy.

     

  • This is just a really good idea. At least give them your tags, cites, and plan text - or at the very, very minimum, your plan text. If you're afraid you'll lose because they found out your plan before the round, you've got to put some more work in; them taking a bit of extra time to find their shells against your specific type of argument shouldn't be the difference between you winning and losing the round.

I'm from Southeast Texas, a school that wasn't part of the UIL, so I'm more familiar with TFA, but there is still a lot of lay-debate in TAPPS and in NFL tournaments.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the arguments behind no advantage CPs?

 

Their solvency evidence are always lies. 

 

Gotta have them downvotes for the day to counter the massive upvotes I've had recently with my one unpopular opinion. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so as we all know policy debate in Texas is different, increasingly so in the UIL and TFA circuits. But unless you are from Texas you probably don't know the difference between UIL and "Crazy UIL".

 

Basically many west Texas debaters go to camp where they learn these "rules", such as:

  • Counterplans must solve for all harms of the Affirmative case.
  • T's must have in round abuse implications.
  • You must disclose your case to the negative team before the 1AC

And so on.

 

They look at my partner and I like we are crazy if we don't fit in this box, so my question to you is how do you refute these to a judge when they present these "rules"?

 

 

This is so freaking steorypical and I really take offense to it. Like I made it farther than you did at the UIL state meet and I made it to TFA state and I ran Nietzsche in finals. Sterotyping is infenintevily regresive and your discourse on this subject is really offensive to most people and expands farther than you realize.

Edited by thatladlogan
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterotyping is infenintevily regresive 

serious point undermined by misspelled irrelevant stereotypical debater jargon.

 

stereotypes don't 'infinitely regress' - in fact, they're usually overdefined ("T must have in round abuse"). Stereotyping debaters is bad for a thousand reasons - this is not one of them. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

serious point undermined by misspelled irrelevant stereotypical debater jargon.

 

stereotypes don't 'infinitely regress' - in fact, they're usually overdefined ("T must have in round abuse"). Stereotyping debaters is bad for a thousand reasons - this is not one of them. 

Actually you are 100% correct about this

I was seriously in the middle of the practice round at camp waiting for the 2AR to speak and I was like in the zone idk

And I was super pissed about this post

so I prob didn't say what I was trying to say correctly

but this is still a serious problem and yeah

 

 

 

tldr; Snarf is right but sterotypes are wrong and I still take offense

 

 

 

(Also I would like to add that you should disclose your 1AC anyways, that's not a West Texas thing that's a good debate thing)

Edited by thatladlogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I was super pissed about this post

tldr; Snarf is right but sterotypes are wrong and I still take offense

 

 

Alright, so as we all know policy debate in Texas is different, increasingly so in the UIL and TFA circuits. But unless you are from Texas you probably don't know the difference between UIL and "Crazy UIL".

 

Basically many west Texas debaters go to camp where they learn these "rules"

I don't understand how OP is stereotyping Texan debaters. He's saying certain circuits and MANY, not all, judges are predominantly taught to adhere to traditional standards of debate. I can also attest to that, I've come across many judges that are lay or stock issues oriented, and I come from a predominantly progressive circuit in Dallas. Assuming that everybody has access to high quality judging pools and can go to TFA may actually be a bigger stereotype than the one you're accusing OP of.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you are 100% correct about this

I was seriously in the middle of the practice round at camp waiting for the 2AR to speak and I was like in the zone idk

And I was super pissed about this post

so I prob didn't say what I was trying to say correctly

but this is still a serious problem and yeah

 

 

 

tldr; Snarf is right but sterotypes are wrong and I still take offense

 

 

 

(Also I would like to add that you should disclose your 1AC anyways, that's not a West Texas thing that's a good debate thing)

 

didn't you get called a cheater at UIL state, why would people listen to you, lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually you are 100% correct about this

I was seriously in the middle of the practice round at camp waiting for the 2AR to speak and I was like in the zone idk

And I was super pissed about this post

so I prob didn't say what I was trying to say correctly

but this is still a serious problem and yeah

 

 

 

tldr; Snarf is right but sterotypes are wrong and I still take offense

 

 

 

(Also I would like to add that you should disclose your 1AC anyways, that's not a West Texas thing that's a good debate thing)

 

didn't you get called a cheater at UIL state, why would people listen to you, lol 

 

lol @ Mickey with the troll

 

I don't understand how OP is stereotyping Texan debaters. He's saying certain circuits and MANY, not all, judges are predominantly taught to adhere to traditional standards of debate. I can also attest to that, I've come across many judges that are lay or stock issues oriented, and I come from a predominantly progressive circuit in Dallas. Assuming that everybody has access to high quality judging pools and can go to TFA may actually be a bigger stereotype than the one you're accusing OP of.

Actually I never said this and I go to a 2A high school with limited funding and resoucres so I don't appreacte you making assumptions about me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I made it farther than you did at the UIL state meet and I made it to TFA state and I ran Nietzsche in finals. 

You're clearly implying here that you have had the judging pool capable of understanding non-traditional arguments and that your school has the resources to send your teams to TFA. Also, I don't understand why you need to bring up how you made it further than him at UIL, doesn't really even seem relevant.

 

But regardless, that's not my point. I still don't understand how OP stereotypes anybody, he only says that many debaters from west Texas may have to deal with conservative judges on a regular basis, not ALL debaters.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so as we all know policy debate in Texas is different, increasingly so in the UIL and TFA circuits. But unless you are from Texas you probably don't know the difference between UIL and "Crazy UIL".

 

Basically many west Texas debaters go to camp where they learn these "rules", such as:

  • Counterplans must solve for all harms of the Affirmative case.
  • T's must have in round abuse implications.
  • You must disclose your case to the negative team before the 1AC

And so on.

 

They look at my partner and I like we are crazy if we don't fit in this box, so my question to you is how do you refute these to a judge when they present these "rules"?

 

This is so freaking steorypical and I really take offense to it. Like I made it farther than you did at the UIL state meet and I made it to TFA state and I ran Nietzsche in finals. Sterotyping is infenintevily regresive and your discourse on this subject is really offensive to most people and expands farther than you realize.

I stated that many West Texas Debaters use these type of theoretical arguments in most debate and act like i'm crazy. I never said that they were bad tactics, I asked how to beat them. Also, what do your achievements have do to with your position on the subject? You just sound like a braggart.

 

And really? "Sterotyping is infenintevily regresive and your discourse on this subject is really offensive to most people and expands farther than you realize." 

Shouting from an ivory tower much? I think the Ks have gone to your head.

  • Downvote 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...