Jump to content
NickDB8

Second Annual Online Debate Tournament

Recommended Posts

Welcome to the Second Annual Online Debate Tournament! This was a tradition started by the cross-x hero beck9696.

 

The Online Debate Tournament will be a double-elimination bracket tournament. The tournament will begin at a date to be decided depending on entries. The topic for the tournament is “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States."

 

If you are interested in participating, please leave a reply to this post. Debaters, once eliminated, may be expected to judge future rounds. If you plan on debating or judging, please reply to this post, including your judging paradigm.

 

List of entries:

 

TheTrashDebater

ronniesportman

ZidaoWang

dante111

TheSnowball

GracchusBabeuf

TheRoadmapIs16Off

lawsonhudson

TheRealRadical1
jhirsch
Preeves22
Masterdebater3000
PailAmbrose
Jw4167
Virumstein
AQuackDebater
RolanD
jmeza111401
Bayernuard
Arrow1124
EthanDB8
nihilistkitten
lfpnub

 

 

 

Judges:

 

NickDB8

TheTrashDebater

ronniesportman

Lukrau

PailAmbrose

vmanAA738

TheSnowball

TheRoadmapIs16Off

CynicClinic

outlier

Nonegfiat

sfrpeterm

OutKTheK

Lukrau

lawsonhudson

DavidGriffith

AQuackDebater

misrap354

 

 

 

Rules:

 

 

1. Timeframe - All participants in the Online Debate Tournament have ONE day to submit their speech document from the last sent speech. A failure to submit a speech document in the allotted time will result in a forfeiture UNLESS an agreement is reached by all relevant debaters/judges. For cross examination, there is 24 hours allowed between a speech and the first cross examination post. After the first cross examination post, there is 24 hours allowed for further questions. The next speech is due 24 hours after the first cross examination after the last speech.
 
2. Structure - All participants will follow traditional VDebate structure, where Word documents will be submitted.
 
3. Word Count - Constructive Speeches will have a 2,750 word limit, and Rebuttals will have a 1,625 word limit. Participants are advised to use the "Stats" function found under the "Debate" tab of Verbatim to count their words.
 
4. Judging, RFDs and Tabbing - Judges will give RFD’s and speaker points at the conclusion of the round. Unlike a normal debate, speaker points will be assessed based on the quality of the word document and the strategy that was deployed by the debater(s). Similar to a normal round, if any offensive rhetoric is used the judge will likely penalize the debater. The scale will be 0-30. Decisions regarding who won and speaker points are not to be disclosed, but rather submitted to me via PM on cross-x.com. Any comments after the round should be relevant to helping both sides improve and not "give away" who won.
 
5. Pairings - Round one will start with a bracket with initial seeds randomly decided. After a debater loses a round, they drop to the "down" bracket. After losing two debates, a debater is eliminated. Because the tournament is bracketed, there will be little tabbing involved. Any tab-related information will be closed until the end of the tournament, excluding postings.
 
6. Responsibilities - All pairings will be immediately announced, and it is the responsibility of the debater to look out for the announcement. If a debater fails to produce a speech document 24 hours after pairings have been announced, they will forfeit their round. This is strictly enforced.

 
 
 

Furthermore, we have received another sponsorship from Exodus Debate Files. Exodus will be providing the following prizes for the tournament. 

  • A $10 discount code for tournament winner
  • A $5 discount code for second place
  • 1st speaker gets a $5 discount code, 2nd speaker gets a $4 code, and so on to 5th speaker getting a $1 off code
Edited by NickDB8
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own paradigm - I will not be competing.

 

 

General:

- I'll evaluate whatever you throw in front of me

- Tech > Truth (Fun fact, I was one of like three people who voted for the Overview Effect in a demo debate at camp 2016 - S/O to Snowball who probably saw Brian Box act like it was a dumb decision once I announced it in front of the camp, but that shows that if it isn't handled well, I'll vote on it)

- Impact calc is good - If you don't do it, I'll do it for you and will resort to util, and you may not like the result

- Specific links are cool, but if you read a generic one in the 1NC and isolate more specific ones via analytics or cards in the block, that's fine. This applies to kritiks and disadvantages

- Immediate drop on the lowest speaker points if one team defends discrimination. There is a difference between the neg reading a link to antiblackness and the aff reading a tag that says "racism good", and vise versa. Linking to a K is one thing, but actively defending discrimination is not ok. This is Cross-X.com, I shouldn't have to say this, but just in case.

- You can be funny. I like memes. No penalty in not being funny, but I will be more generous on speaks if you are.

- Case debate is good. Presumption is winnable.

 

Kritiks:

Read them, make sure I understand them. I can understand a lot of security, cap, other basic K's, queer theory, and that's about it. If you read something other than this, please break it down and explain what every part of the K means. Don't tell me to "Vote neg to embrace rhizomatic thought" without explaining what rhizomatic thought is and what it's implications are, or why I need to embrace it in the first place.

 

Disadvantages:

I know this pretty well. Not a lot you have to do here that wasn't covered in "General".

 

Counterplans:
Some are cheating, but I'll vote for them, see "Other theory". Make sure it competes and solves part of the aff. 

 

Topicality/FW:

Will default to competing interps unless reasonability is argued and won. Please isolate internal links from your interp to your standards to education, fairness, and whatever other voting issues you read. I don't think T/FW is inherently violent, but I'll vote on it.

 

Affs:

Pretty cool, win FW, see "Kritiks".

 

Other theory:

I tend to lean neg, because being neg is already an uphill battle, but that doesn't mean you should read 48 condo advocacies. With this in mind, negs, please be reasonable, affs, read theory if there is real abuse. I reject argument, not team, by default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Perf con is a viable option depending on how strong the contradiction is.

 

If questions, shoot me a PM.

 

Edited by NickDB8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Second Annual Online Debate Tournament! This was a tradition started by the cross-x hero beck9696.

 

The Online Debate Tournament will be a double-elimination bracket tournament. The tournament will begin at a date to be decided depending on entries. The topic for the tournament is “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States."

 

If you are interested in participating, please leave a reply to this post. Debaters, once eliminated, may be expected to judge future rounds. If you plan on debating or judging, please reply to this post, including your judging paradigm.

 

List of entries:

 

None, yet!

 

 

Judges:

 

NickDB8

 

 

Rules:

 

 

1. All participants in the Online Debate Tournament have ONE day to submit their speech document from the last sent speech. A failure to submit a speech document in the allotted time will result in a forfeiture UNLESS an agreement is reached by all relevant debaters/judges.

 

2. All participants will follow traditional VDebate structure, where Word documents will be submitted.

 

3. Constructive Speeches will have a 2,750 word limit, and Rebuttals will have a 1,625 word limit. Participants are advised to use the "Stats" function found under the "Debate" tab of Verbatim to count their words.

 

4. Judges will give RFD’s and speaker points at the conclusion of the round. Unlike a normal debate, speaker points will be assessed based on the quality of the word document and the strategy that was deployed by the debater(s). Similar to a normal round, if any offensive rhetoric is used the judge will likely penalize the debater. The scale will be 0-30. Decisions regarding who won and speaker points are not to be disclosed, but rather submitted to me via PM on cross-x.com. Any comments after the round should be relevant to helping both sides improve and not "give away" who won.

 

5. Round one will start with a bracket with initial seeds randomly decided. After a debater loses a round, they drop to the "down" bracket. After losing two debates, a debater is eliminated. Because the tournament is bracketed, there will be little tabbing involved. Any tab-related information will be closed until the end of the tournament, excluding postings.

 

6. All pairings will be immediately announced, and it is the responsibility of the debater to look out for the announcement. If a debater fails to produce a speech document 24 hours after pairings have been announced, they will forfeit their round. This is strictly enforced.

 

 

 

 

The prize for the winner has yet to be determined, but I promise, it will be fantastic ;). There will be "speaker awards", depending on how many entries enter. I'm surely missing something, so feel free to add questions and whatnot here! We look forward to hearing from you soon!

I’ll throw my name in the pool for both, I’ll post paradigms later

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to compete if we need people but I think I'd be better suited to judging. I have no backfiles on this topic but I have judged about 10 rounds on it so far so I'm familiar enough to judge.

 

Paradigm:

 

 

 

 

In real life I'm a complete framework hack. I debate for one of the most traditional schools in the country, and I've only gone for the K a handful of times in my entire career, even in high school.

 

All that notwithstanding, I like kritiks and I admire people who can run them well. And while I think most framework arguments are "true", I am open to listening to planless affs and have voted on them in the past, even against T. You shouldn't feel like you have to change your style in front of me, but this does mean that I place a high premium on defensive arguments when arguing against framework. It will be easier to persuade me that the TVA is a reasonable alternative to the aff than it will be to persuade me that requiring someone to advocate government action is inherently violent or that the impact to excluding one aff independently outweighs larger procedural issues in debate, so you need to win defense on the framework flow. Equally important if not more so, I think the aff needs a stable point of contestation, so if that doesn't mean a plan, it means an explicit advocacy statement. If your aff fails to meet this incredibly modest burden, I will most likely drop you. Sorry but also not sorry.

 

Now that we've addressed the elephant in the room, what else do I look for in a debate? All the typical stuff: Proper organization, clear explanations, warranted analysis, smart strategic choices, etc. Aside from that, I am a believer in what I think of as "restrained conditionality". That means I think you get to test the aff on multiple levels, but I don't think you get to blatantly contradict yourself. In other words, I'm not down to pretend that each of your conditional advocacies exists in a void. If you read an alt that calls for an "absolute refusal" or anything along those lines, I'm gonna be irritated if you read that at the same time as some shitty process counterplan that does the exact same thing as the aff. If you couldn't tell, that means I think perm double binds are good and persuasive so you should make them.

 

Speaking of process counterplans, I think most of them are probably fine, but that doesn't mean you should completely blow off the theory debate. I think word PICs are probably bad, and so are delay CP's, but I lean more toward "if an argument is shitty you should be able to explain why it's shitty" than "if an argument is shitty I'm going to use my judge powers to protect you from it". So by all means, go for theory, but I expect to see actual analysis done and not just blippy extensions of your standards.

 

Lastly, role of the ballot arguments suck. I think "the only role of the ballot is to vote for the team that did the better debating-- anything else is arbitrary and self serving" is a 100% true argument. Of course, there have been times where I've begrudgingly had to vote a certain way because someone dropped the role of the ballot, but in general it doesn't take much to beat this stuff in front of me. Why we can't just do impact framing and instead have to claim magic agency over the ballot that somehow supersedes other impact arguments, I have no idea.

 

Some vdebate specific stuff:

 

In general when judging these things, I start by reading the final rebuttals and work my way backwards. I don't have the energy to read thousands of words that I know won't be a factor in my decision. That naturally means that I will miss some stuff, so don't be afraid to call me out or bring something to my attention.

 

When it comes to theory debates, I don't think "this is a vdebate, you could have done x" is a very compelling argument. 1) the purpose of vdebates is to practice with the arguments for when real debates roll around, so I'm not sure what changing the rules does for anyone. 2)  Believe it or not, people still have time constraints when it comes to writing 3000-word speech docs.

 

On that topic, I'm open to being flexible with time limits, but I expect you to follow through on when you say you're gonna get stuff done. Don't commit to having something up by a specific time if you're not gonna do it. 

 

<50 words above the limit is fine, 50-100 you're kinda pushing it, anything over 100 I'm sending it back.

 

 

Also, I tend to write very thorough RFD's and sometimes they can come off as overly critical, so please don't take any of that personally.

 

 

Any other questions just ask!

 

 

EDIT: I will read evidence during the round. If your cards are egregiously bad, I could decide to throw them out even if your opponent doesn't point out how bad they suck. Reading a tag does not grant you the argument-- you still have the burden of warranting your claims. The question of "have they actually made the argument?" comes prior to the question of "has their opponent adequately responded to the argument?"

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm game, Paradigms will be posted soon

 

Paradigm

1. Nothing offensive

2. Tech over truth to the extent that it doesn't conflict with another thing on paradigm

3. LOVE K AFFs

4. LOVE K's

5. Know ur stuff. Don't read a K if you don't understand it. Misinterpretation is a err other team. You have an ethical obligation to be truthful

6. If you debate FW - I vote for the FW team if they prove you have 0 offense or if they have more offense. Explain to me why you get to break the rules besides for saying its not that bad.

7. Gimme all the impact calc u got

8. Theory is chill. I find that theory is there for a reason. Don't read theory bad, rather explain abuse.

9. I buy potential abuse.

10. IF its policy vs policy its offense vs defense not stock issues

11. All cheating allegations put debate in contestation. It's try or die. If someone deleted a line in a card they automatically lose, but if you accuse one of doing so and they did not, you drop the round

12. I LOVE NEW ARGS!!!!!! YOUR SPEAKS AND MY LENIENCY SKYROCKET IF I HAVEN"T HEARD SMTH BEFORE. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to compete too. My paradigm is the same as Raunak’s except for the fact that I am bad at K’s. If you run a k read lots of analytics as explanations/definitions. If I don’t understand the K I will not vote on it.

Quoting Raunak’s paradigm for reference

 

Paradigm

1. Nothing offensive

2. Tech over truth to the extent that it doesn't conflict with another thing on paradigm

3. LOVE K AFFs

4. LOVE K's

5. Know ur stuff. Don't read a K if you don't understand it. Misinterpretation is a err other team. You have an ethical obligation to be truthful

6. If you debate FW - I vote for the FW team if they prove you have 0 offense or if they have more offense. Explain to me why you get to break the rules besides for saying its not that bad.

7. Gimme all the impact calc u got

8. Theory is chill. I find that theory is there for a reason. Don't read theory bad, rather explain abuse.

9. I buy potential abuse.

10. IF its policy vs policy its offense vs defense not stock issues

11. All cheating allegations put debate in contestation. It's try or die. If someone deleted a line in a card they automatically lose, but if you accuse one of doing so and they did not, you drop the round

12. I LOVE NEW ARGS!!!!!! YOUR SPEAKS AND MY LENIENCY SKYROCKET IF I HAVEN"T HEARD SMTH BEFORE.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge, but if you're short on people I'd debate. I've judge about 30 rounds this topic but a lot were lay so take that as you will.

My paradigm:

 


- Tech > truth
- I'll buy terminal defense on anything except impacts - X might not cause war/extinction, but the world would still probably be better without it. You can win presumption.
- Do impact calc. I'll probably default to systemic impacts oI ver nuke war if no one does any impact calc
- I'm not the best at flowing, so if you want to win/get high speaks make line-by-line as easy for me as possible
-I wouldn't normally vote on condo. However, if the neg dramatically mishandles it, there's more than 3 condo, or there's a perfcon (not just tension, but a genuine perfcon), my threshold for voting aff will drop pretty quick

- ON Ks: Read them. On this topic, I can't think of an aff where a K 1NC is worse than a policy 1NC if you know what you're doing. I love Ks and K affs, but I'm still learning the ins and outs of high theory Ks. I'm most familiar with cap, set col, abolition (<3), and Lacan, but I'll evaluate any K that you can explain well enough (Buzzwords are not explanation)

- On FW: I do sometimes run framework, but honestly Ks have been a part of debate for so long I tend to side aff. I'm more convinced by framework arguments about using the law to solve the aff's impacts than about procedural fairness, although fairness is still winnable if you impact it out enough. On aff, offense on FW is good but I think you should always have defense or at least some sort of reasonability claim against fairness. Speaking of which, I will probably default to competing interps, but I can be persuaded by reasonability

- ON CPs: I think CPs that have a specific solvency advocate are probably fair and a part of this topic's lit base, so I'm less inclined to reject them on theory. Most cheating CPs are fine, except for delay. I don't really like word PICs, although I'm more sympathetic to PICing out of words in the plan text. I have a higher threshold for abuse, but I'm much more inclined to reject the team than most judges, so if you think there's genuine abuse then feel free to go for theory against CPs.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a date more or less in mind yet?

Not as of yet, it will probably be in the next month or so.

Edited by NickDB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to judge. Here is my paradigm!

 

 

1. You can do pretty much whatever you want in front of me. My pronouns are he/him.

 

2. Be sure you know how to explain your kritik. I'm also not a big fan of shit like Baudrillard and Delueze. they make no sense.

 

3. Funny jokes will make me give you higher speaks.

 

4. Please dont run stupid theory in front of me. This isn't the 80's.

 

5. Conditionality is good.

 

6. No in-round abuse.

 

7. No racism good, sexism good, etc. I will vote against you and give you negative speaks.

 

8. I like th states counterplan + federalism da combo. I think it's very strategic. Politics is good too.

 

9. Have fun!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i’d like to compete as well

 

when i have to judge:

fairly well-versed on k lit, so read what you want

 

love k debate, but if trad is your thing you have equally good chances

 

read whatever you’re comfortable with, i’ll vote on any argument if you win it and its well explained

 

if you want a 30 ask me what you can do for the 30 in person

 

any other clarifications ask me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd definitely love to debate
 
If you are lacking judges, I'd love to judge as well 
 
My paradigms are:
Decently versed in K lit, but you should explain decently why it's a voter 
 
Basically read whatever you want
 
I won't vote exclusively on T just because you say it's a voter in the 1NC and never bring that up again in the later speeches
 
Theory is great, but please don't bring the whole debate round to a muddy theory debate
 
Read anything and I'll vote on it if you're winning on the flow and if you explain it well
 
I'll genuinely consider any performance and/or squirrely arguments if they have any merit

 

Pronouns are they/them

Edited by TheRoadmapIs16Off
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've updated the list of judges and competitors - Please check and confirm you are entered in the category/categories you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it's not too late. 

I'll judge too, here's my paradigm:

Quick things

If you have any specific questions--feel free to ask

I will only vote on arguments you tell me to vote on

I am a Kritikal judge, if you run a lot of Ks/High Theory pref me

In your last speech—go for arguments and never go for everything

Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments

This is supposed to be an academic space.  Don't swear. Don't make a mockery out of the activity.  Don't exclude your opponents from this awesome activity.  Don't be rude.  Student safety comes first.  I have voted down teams for crossing the line. 

Alternatively, no need to be fake nice--I'm all about the competition.  Being aggressive is fine--calling your opponent's argument "dumb" is not.

Gender norms related to debate are bad. As an example, everyone should feel welcome to be aggressive during their speeches with me as a judge. If you don't want to be--that's cool--you do you.

Theory (+Topicality)

High threashold for theory--it generally requires a legitimate claim based on questionable actions by the other side. I’ve voted on it before, but it has to be developed and it has to dive deep into the standards. I generally default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. Have offense against their interpretation/their voters and use the standards to prove substance to your theoretical objection. If you go for theory in any sense of the word, tell me whether it’s a reason to reject the team or argument and provide offense for that. 

Also: 10 second theory shells deserve 10 second responses. Even if they are conceded--I would still probably default to reject the arg. If you want me to make your theory argument enough weight to make me ignore everything else in the debate and vote for you, then give it the time it deserves.

On conditionality: 1 is fine--2 is probably fine--3 is debateable--4 probably not fine

Disadvantages

Link story is usually the largest uphill battle, so you should probably have more than one link
Specific links are good links
Disad turns case is important
Risk of uniqueness is a thing
Link turns need uniqueness to be offense

Counterplans

Not sure what else to say--CP's are strategic and should be used often. Ones that are specific to the aff are especially fun.

I will vote on theory against abusive counter plans if you tell me to, but I will not make arguments for you.

Kritiks 

Go for whatever, I don't want to limit you. As a kritikal debater, make sure not just I know what you are saying, but your opponent does also. I prefer clash.
Framework

Whereas I love Kritiks, Framework is a very good Neg argument against K affs. If you were to go for it, make sure to have in round abuse, potential abuse is hard to vote for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a paradigm if you want me judging after I probably go 0-2 against these experienced ass debaters lol:

 

I'm a policymaker: 

 

T: Default to competing interpretations, a strong reasonability push is winnable. If you concede competing interps, you'll have to put offense on your interp to win the flow. I will vote on potential abuse. Also if you clearly don't meet don't say you meet. Fam. 

 

DA: 

Links are more important than uniqueness. Case turns are awesome and can usually get you out of not meeting their F/W if it's convincing. Impact calc is important, and would help if it came before the 2NR. Strong internal links chains are more important than strong links. Zero risk is a thing.

 

 

CP:

Neg: Fifty state fiat is good, slightly lean neg on most cheating CPs but theory is winnable. The one thing I'm skeptical about are word pics. If the CP is only competitive through the net benefit you will have to do more work on the net ben. Give me framing (sufficiency, etc). If the aff doesn't make solvency deficits on your CP, you will win a risk of the link to the net ben unless you drop something, and will probably win the round. Tell me why the net ben outweighs a solvency deficit. I judge kick if you tell me to, but affs can refute it in the 2AR.

Aff:   Impact out solvency deficits on the aff (Why is the CP solving a little less unacceptable, etc). Well developed shielding arguments on a perm are a thing of beauty. Even if it still links to the DA, you can always win that it links less.  If you know you're not going to win a solvency deficit to a CP, consider putting a lot of offense on the net benefit or going for theory.

 

K:

Neg: I'm fine with common Ks like Cap/Security, etc. For Ks like DnG or Baudrillard I'm not your guy. Specific links are great. If I don't understand the K enough to explain it I probably won't vote on it, so helpful analytics and overviews on less mainstream Ks would be great. Alternatives need to be contextualized well. On F/W tell me why your impacts are the most important, and why discussing your K is educational/important.

Affs: Affs will get to weigh their affs unless they lose a silver bullet (reps 1st, root cause, etc). Attack alt solvency, make case outweighs args and well developed perms for the aff. Always have a no link in the 2AC unless you wanna go for turns. A mitigated link will help you greatly on the perm.

 

Theory: In round abuse is more persuasive here, although competing interps is still a good model.  Reject arg not team for almost anything except condo unless you give me a reason to. Condo is fine.  1 CP and 1 K is legit. More than 2 and it's debatable. More than 4 and I'm definitely leaning aff. Anything ending with SPEC I would be skeptical about unless there is a very strong potential abuse claim or actual in round abuse. New in the 2 is ok if the abuse comes in the 2AC.

 

Case: Negs should at least try to debate it. Impact defense can be good tiebreakers when it's a close debate. Even if you go for a CP, case in the 2NR is still good. Presumption is a thing. 2AC add ons can be very strategic against CPs that solve a vast majority of your case. You need to win the case to win the round. New in the 1AR is probably Ok unless u go crazy, but negs would most likely get to read evidence in the 2NR.

 

K Affs: Will vote on them, but I am sympathetic to F/W. I think actual in round abuse really isn't necessary. Affs should tell me why your form of education is good, how the negs can engage with your aff, and why your impacts outweigh. If negs can't provide a TVA it'll be harder to win F/W. View TVAs like a counterplan and your net bens are fairness and education. Perming a K is probably your best bet on the aff.

Edited by ZidaoWang

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...