Jump to content
lassothatcard

Preparing Tips

Recommended Posts

Hey I was wondering if you guys could give me some tips on how to prepare. I want to destroy my opponents and get 30 speaks every round. I heard there's a super good card that lets you win every round. I'm new to debate, but if you all could give me this card I would be super happy.

 

Thanks,

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're being serious, there's no one way to win every debate because what represents a 30 in the eyes of one judge represents a loss in the eyes of another. Just organize your skills into categories - speed, flowing, researching, etc. - set measurable goals and follow through on them, practice every day, and spend a lot of time reflecting about debate and strategy.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not. I'm still in 8th grade and I told my high school friend I'm joining CX. He told me to ask on this website if I have questions. Also, what's wrong with my questions? (I'm actually new to all this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But thanks for the advice Ryan/TheSnowball. Also why doesn't it show your school name Ryan?

Edited by lassothatcard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go to Arapahoe High School in Colorado. It's not a big debate school so I don't see a reason to show it.

 

Check out the daily card linked in my signature if you're debating on the education topic.

 

Also, I think the Digital Debate Camp might still be open if you were willing to drop a few hundred bucks in exchange for a summer of high-quality coaching - it seems like a good investment for an 8th grader aspiring to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a small school in your name is rewarding Ryan. Also, don't believe the dude that says Antonio 95 is the best card in debate, you can find it somewhere on my profile. The question itself was good, I figured you were memeing because you said Antonio was a place, even though the place is named after Saint Anthony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest life lesson for debate- NEVER BURN FLOWS.

 

In the middle of a tourney, my partner and I set flows ablaze in a bathoom stall and it set off a fire alarm.

 

Don't be like us.

 

Save your flows.

 

Review them.

 

Learn.

 

Don't delay a tournament 2 hours cause a fire alarm goes off due to your weird rituals/celebrations.

Edited by NativeWarlock
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with underlining from adam martin himself! -

 

Desire – fiat relegates the question of the actor to a place of fiction – their understanding of politics is reflective of a Socratic notion of subjectivity that makes life-affirmation impossible.

Antonio 95 (Robert, July 1995, “Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 101, No. 1) //AMM

Treating words as mirrors of reality provides a comforting illusion of "certainty." This tendency obscures the social bases of language, reifies social conventions, and weakens capacities to imagine and create alternative conditions. Linguistic "abbreviations" cement obligatory social ties where "mutual agreement" about "feelings" is absent and the tendency to "let go" must be stemmed. Nietzsche held that language serves social selection of the herd, keeping experiences, desires, impulses, and actions of weak persons within boundaries, inscribing strong individuals as collective enemies, and redirecting ressentiment into regimentation. Accordingly, cultural rationalization makes this process of liquidating particularity more effective and universal (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 100—102, 216—17; 19686, pp. 357-58, 380). Since Nietzsche was himself a master writer, his polemics about words per se are hyperbolic.11 The real target is Socratic culture's exceptionally abstract languages, rampant conceptual reifications, and impoverished aesthetic sensibilities. Nietzsche believed that the obsession with rational representation makes the body an inert target of disciplinary control. Adoration of concepts, theory, and reason makes the abstract signifier the ultimate object of knowledge. Purely formal concepts are treated as the "highest," "real," and "true" things, while sense experience is relegated to the degraded status of "appearance." Platonic ideas, Chris- tian soul, Kantian things-in-themselves, and Newtonian atoms and time are all foundational reifications that "dehistoricize" the corporeal world and erect illusions of firm "grounds" for those who cannot face life without God and tradition or bear the weight of its connective choices and its "great dice game" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 287-90; 19686, p. 549; 19686, pp. 35-37). Destroying Socratic culture's "objective" foundations (i.e., God and Truth), the latest phase of cultural rationalization greatly amplifies feel- ings of uncertainty. The consequent desperate searching and clinging produces frenetic reification; fanatical new prejudices, religions, and politics appear alongside the most sterile intellectual formalisms. Mass culture's hastily formulated languages blur all difference and ambiguity (e.g., parties "transform their principles into great at fresco stupidities"). The proliferation of abstract signifiers, arising from diverse locations and detached from any sense of stable referents, contribute to increasingly mechanical, diffuse, and mindless regimentation. In this fashion, Nietzsche severed the links that modern theorists saw between rationalization and enhanced communication, social integration, and legitimate authority (Nietzsche 1983, p. 215; 1986, pp. 161-62; 1966, pp. 216-17; 19686, pp. 357-58, 380-81). According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression of ressentiment, master reification, and ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed" (Nietzsche 1969b, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing that subjectified culture weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83). The "problem of the actor," Nietzsche said, "troubled me for the longest time."'12 He considered "roles" as "external," "surface," or "foreground" phenomena and viewed close personal identification with them as symptomatic of estrangement. While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that persons (especially male professionals) in specialized occupations over identify with their positions and engage in gross fabrications to obtain advancement. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" They are so thoroughly absorbed in simulating effective role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by paralyzing over concern about possible causes, meanings, and consequences of acts and unending internal dialogue about what others might think, expect, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous rotation of socially appropriate "masks" reduces persons to hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or simulacra. One adopts "many roles," playing them "badly and superficially" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor?  A representative or that which is represented? . . . [Or] no more than an imitation of an actor?" Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to othersThis type of actor cannot plan for the long term or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). Superficiality rules in the arid subjectivized landscape. Nietzsche (1974, p. 259) stated, "One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock market; one lives as if one always 'might miss out on something. ''Rather do anything than nothing': this principle, too, is merely a string to throttle all culture. . . . Living in a constant chase after gain compels people to expend their spirit to the point of exhaustion in continual pretense and overreaching and anticipating others." Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. Nietzsche respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply feared the new simulated versions. Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; they are "violent, envious, exploitative, scheming, fawning, cringing, arrogant, all according to circumstances. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. The deadly combination of desperate conforming and overreaching and untrammeled ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest to OP to search in the search bar for mentions of the Antonio evidence linked above; there have been discussions on this site from much more veteran users that discuss its relation to debate and whether the things that it's talking about would be applicable to the policy making model that is followed in policy debate. Certainly, these discussions might not be true as the evidence is open to interpretation; but having a deeper understanding of the card that is derived from multiple sources would be help you I'd say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest life lesson for debate- NEVER BURN FLOWS.

 

In the middle of a tourney, my partner and I set flows ablaze in a bathoom stall and it set off a fire alarm.

 

Don't be like us.

 

Save your flows.

 

Review them.

 

Learn.

 

Don't delay a tournament 2 hours cause a fire alarm goes off due to your weird rituals/celebrations.

 

Hahaha, wait was this at nats? I'd really like to hear to whole story lol

Edit: I keep picturing Issac with a lighter...

Edited by LeKritiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha, wait was this at nats? I'd really like to hear to whole story lol

Edit: I keep picturing Issac with a lighter...

Lmao this was a local tourney and we set them on fire right before entering finals cause we'd knocked out an A team the night before.

 

We left to enter our round and apparently tons of smoke accumulated. We began a 2ac and the fire alarms started blaring. We had to evacuate for 2 hours while they tried to find the source.

 

We were eventually cleared to go back in but as we started the round again the alarms went off.. AGAIN.

 

Not to mention this round was hell. Scifi vs irony. The evacuation was better than debating at the time and i dont think our opponents minded lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify that Antonio 95 is not actually that great of a card, or at least, that it won't "win you every round," especially for people who are just learning to debate, in case that wasn't clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify that Antonio 95 is not actually that great of a card, or at least, that it won't "win you every round," especially for people who are just learning to debate, in case that wasn't clear.

I've won multiple rounds on the national circuit going for this card.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've won multiple rounds on the national circuit going for this card.

Yes, but for someone just learning how to debate, it's not the best idea. I should also imagine that you read other evidence alongside it and contextualized it. However, a lot of people present it as though one would stand up for the 1NC, read Antonio 95, and sit down, immediately winning the round. So I agree it makes a defensible argument, but I think you'd agree with me that it by no means guarantees one to win a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like antonio 95. It supposedly talks about role playing, but that's not what policy debate is. We aren't pretending to be the USFG; this isn't student Congress.

 

And, the card itself (or at least the version I have on file) doesn't even talk about roleplaying; it talks about overidentifying with your profession leading to ressentiment. So I've always been really confused how you get from there to "fiat bad" or "policy simulation bad" or whatever.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like antonio 95. It supposedly talks about role playing, but that's not what policy debate is. We aren't pretending to be the USFG; this isn't student Congress.

Reminds me of "This Ballot" by Scott Harris:

 

"This idea that debate is about role playing being a part of the government puzzles me greatly. While I have been in debate for 40 years now never once have I role played being part of the government. When I debated and when I have judged debates I have never pretended to be anyone but Scott Harris. Pretending to be Scott Harris is burden enough for me. Scott Harris has formed many opinions about what the government and other institutions should or should not do without ever role playing being part of those institutions. I would form opinions about things the government does if I had never debated. I cannot imagine a world in which people don’t form opinions about the things their government does. I don’t know where this vision of debate comes from. I have no idea at all why it would be oppressive for someone to form an opinion about whether or not they think the government should or should not do something."

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like antonio 95. It supposedly talks about role playing, but that's not what policy debate is. We aren't pretending to be the USFG; this isn't student Congress.

 

And, the card itself (or at least the version I have on file) doesn't even talk about roleplaying; it talks about overidentifying with your profession leading to ressentiment. So I've always been really confused how you get from there to "fiat bad" or "policy simulation bad" or whatever.

 

Its definitely not in the context of policy debate and that's why you won't see it in most high level rounds. Apparently the person who cut the card in the first place (forget who) decided it was an awful card and regretted cutting it. There's a giant block somewhere that gives a few more reasons that its wrong, idk where though.

 

-> (see above comment)

Edited by LeKritiker
  • 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...