Jump to content
NickDB8

Second Annual Online Debate Tournament

Recommended Posts

I'd love to judge!


 


Here's my paradigm:


 


I mostly go for kritiks, but I will definitely vote on a traditional team. I started out as a traditional debater and I believe that both styles produce great debates.


 


1. Tech > Truth


 


I'll vote on anything if you impact it out well. I won't vote on theory if the violation is a meme. You get what you put into it.


 


CP:


 


Fifty State Fiat is probably a true argument, so this is an example of a theory I would vote on if impacted out. I am, however, still very neutral on this. PICs are cool, Advantage CPs are strategic. Perm theory: I will err aff on the cp if the neg concedes the perm and doesn't answer the aff's offense argument. Perms are a test of competition, but don't expect that to stop me from voting on the aff if you don't say this and answer it. I really like the use of advantage cps to take out specific advantages, and I think it is smart.


 


K:


 


Love 'em, but the neg(/aff if you are inclined) HAS to prove that the alt/advocacy does something. "uhh, yeah, simulations, where's my win" won't work. I love biopower, and Agamben is a great guy. I'm not super knowledgeable about DnG or Psycho, but if you argue them, I will make a real attempt to understand your argument (in a Vdebate, I have the time to look shit up!). Be understanding, and show your understanding. Don't run Baudrillard and than be a dick when people ask you a question about it. Don't answer with terms of art. I absolutely love when a team can articulate its argument in layman's terms, and I think that shows a true understanding of the (sometimes dense) philosophical arguments y'all run. I feel like the kritikal community can be kind of mean to people that don't understand what you are talking about, so really make an effort to be a nice guy and explain. If your opponent doesn't know much about the kritik, than suggesting some literature they can read to help them understand it is really only ever a plus. It's super good for your ethos. I'm not saying any of y'all will run/hit a kritik you won't understand in these rounds, but I thought I'd say this anyway. Util is Trutil until proven otherwise. I like util debates, and I really don't have an opinion on which system of morality is better, I just default to Trutil.


 


FW:


 


I err aff on framework, just as a k debater, unfortunately. I have an unconscious bias. However, when the aff runs framework vs a neg critique, I am neutral, as even as a k debater, framework remains one of the best ways a really obscure k can be beaten, especially if you can't run a generic like cap, because you are aff. Smart and unique framework arguments are very welcome, and framework innovation is pretty great.


 


DA:


 


Love em, win uniqueness, do cool impact-y stuff.


 


Case:


 


Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case.


 


But seriously, even if you run 1 off kritik, make an attempt to answer some arguments, just so you can make a smart framework argument about it later.


 


Politics:


 


Fuck you, but than again, I love you.


 


...


 


Yeah, I'll vote on em. Begrudgingly. Riders are the only exception! I love me some rider politics DAs!


 


Tl;dr:


 


I have one of those really generic paradigms like "I'll vote on anything", even if I have unconscious biases towards kritiks. I default to trutil. Yeah.


 


P.S. If you run cap, I expect you to not wear anything store bought and debate on a laptop you created with your own two hands, minecraft style.


 


Unfortunately, I can't prove anything, so I guess you can discard this part of my paradigm.


 


Pronouns are he/him.


 


Excited to experience some high level debating!


Edited by OutKTheK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge 

 

 

Experience:

- Varsity debater for Oak Park River Forest high school

- The best middle school judge in history

 

 

Broad Generalizations:

- Explain K links

- Condo is probably bad

- I hate theory debates

- You should read a plan but you don't have to

 

 

More Specific Stuff

 

Truth vs. Tech - I don't exactly know where I stand on this issue, so I'll say this: I'm significantly more likely to vote on an argument that is true than a blippy extension of a conceded card that I don't quite understand. Dropped arguments are dropped arguments, but that isn't an excuse to avoid explaining them. If I don't feel an argument has been explained, I won't vote on it unless I have to. Don't make me. 

 

Counterplans: Love them, went for them almost every neg round on the China topic. Must have a net benefit, topical counterplans are great. Try to avoid confusing PICs, but anything with enough explanation of solvency is fine for me. I'm not a fan of theory, but I'll vote on it if it is debated well and it is actually what the round comes down to. PICs are probably bad, consult CPs are ehhh, 50 state fiat is bad, condo is probably bad but I'm very conflicted on this issue, neg gets fiat, international fiat is ehhh, agent CPs are fucking amazing. 

 

DAs: Aff teams should point out how most DAs will probably never happen. Nobody does this. Internal links suck. For most DAs, this is where analytics are the most powerful for me. I think that logical explanations that takeout or prove an internal link chain are much better than an overhighlighted card that says "econ decline". I hate when impacts are just tagged with "Extinction", so don't do that. It's annoying. PTX is great, and I go for it frequently. Federalism is ehh in front of me because I hate debating it but I'll gladly vote on it. Prove a specific link, and you'll make the 2NR a lot easier.

 

Kritiks: Explain the link. Anything that is explained is fine. I'm a policy debater who goes for security and neolib frequently. I have very strong dispositions about security. It is my favorite argument, but that doesn't mean you should skimp. Ks should have overviews, but if you can integrate that into the line by line, bully for you. 

 

T/FW: I have a high threshold for voting neg on T. There needs to be articulated in-round abuse to justify voting for the neg against a policy aff. Against a K aff, I think affs should read a plan and that plan should be topical. However, I think that K affs that are connected to the topic are good for education. Impact turns will be the affs best friend against FW. Just debate out the impacts. I default to competing interps, but can be swayed on reasonability. A good FW debate is my favorite debate, so please please engage. 

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:

 

TheTrashDebater

ronniesportman

ZidaoWang

Lukrau

dante111

TheSnowball

GracchusBabeuf

TheRoadmapIs16Off

sfrpeterm

 

 

 

Judges:

 

NickDB8

TheTrashDebater

ronniesportman

Lukrau

PailAmbrose

iheartzizek

TheSnowball

GracchusBabeuf

TheRoadmapIs16Off

CynicClinic

outlier

Nonegfiat

sfrpeterm

OutKTheK

 

 

 

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!

 

 

Bump to start

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new to the site, but I would love to compete if it's not too late to sign up!

 

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

Lukrau

dante111

TheSnowball

GracchusBabeuf

TheRoadmapIs16Off

sfrpeterm

 

 

 

Judges:

 

NickDB8

TheTrashDebater

ronniesportman

Lukrau

PailAmbrose

iheartzizek

TheSnowball

GracchusBabeuf

TheRoadmapIs16Off

CynicClinic

outlier

Nonegfiat

sfrpeterm

OutKTheK

 

 

 

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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the massive delay / inactivity. Tomorrow morning, I will update the entry list. The tournament will start April 16th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**All entries for judging / debating have been updated**

**Please make sure you are entered in the correct category**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One week until we start - Please make sure you are entered in the desired category/categories, and if you would like to participate, please enter before the 16th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sign me up, I'd be delighted to participate. 

 

ill compete if its not too late

You've both been added : )

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...