Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/18/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Since both files are free, you're probably best off starting from the debate round and how you like to win and then working backwards to construct your own file. My file (#2) uses a rejection alt because I was always a trick-style K debater. I want all my links to uniquely turn the case in a security debate. Example: Indo-Pak war seems likely because of the security mindset but is actually very unlikely, however treating it like a tinderbox will make war inevitable. I loved having tons and tons of links like that because they worked super well with impact defense on the case, alt causes, and solvency deficits. I would weave the case and K together in the 2NR to make the abandonment of the aff preferable to its endorsement. We'd generate some uniqueness claims out of the idea that rejecting the aff is different than accepting the SQ. We also tended to reduce the debate to a simple competing epistemology matrix (both stories are equally likely, but believing in our story is preferable to their story). This gels well with the underlying psychoanalysis that structures our theory. Other people love investing in the alt and making net benefits based off a rearticulated international order. That style is viable but more vulnerable to the perm. Its advantage is that you clearly generate UQ to the links but my fear was always that the links didn't assume the inclusion of the alternative so the aff could jettison a bunch of stuff and win on "plan is a good idea in the context of the alt." However, lots of teams have had success with a more IR based alternative so if that fits your style you should go for that. Either way, compile your own links doc and learn it intimately. The link is EVERYTHING in the security debate. Everything. You have to characterize the plan and you have to be able to tell coherent stories with high narrative fidelity and narrative consistency. Good luck!
  2. 1 point
    Just disclose. It literally takes like 5 minutes and you can easily do it after each debate or at least after every tournament. There's not a right to disclosure, but you probably shouldn't be taking advantage of other debaters by seeing what they've disclosed when you won't at least do the same. If you have a problem remembering past 2NRs there's a super easy solution to that: use your wiki.
  3. 1 point
    I freakin love this I have half a mind to think you’re a fellow policy hack just pretending to be a novice just to make a point lol Yes, the 2NR can always be the K, because yes, you can always have a link to the squo. Just be ready to make the link debate sound really good in the 2NC. A couple metaphors here and there, a fancy link of omission, all that good stuff. It will sound really good if you can find quotes from their evidence. So like if you’re running the cap k, find stuff that refers to the economy or markets or money or production. It doesn’t matter what the card is actually saying, it’s all about spin But uh on a more serious note, that’s bad debating so don’t do it if you have other options Edit: no disrespect to you K people. you’re allowed to think policy debate is stupid, and other people are allowed to criticize K debate And yes, not every K link is bullshit. But let’s be real here, many of them are
  4. 1 point
    Sorry if this is off track, but excellent Post Malone reference
  5. 1 point
    I will explain why I viewed it this way, to start off, in 2nc CX they justified their action of "anti-fragile", because of the fact that they posted it on their twitter, facebook, tumblr, and other pages, and stated that therefore it was justified. They then went on to state that by the fact that the affirmative, (who weren't used to spreading), tried to read their evidence was bad because that destroyed the "education" created, because the 1ar would then go straight to their coach made blocks instead of doing it themselves. I feel as though that the "anti-fragile" message, would've been better created and used, if: 1. In CX, when the 1nc begins answering questions for the 2nc and obviously angers the 1ac and 2ac, DON'T STATE "are you mad?", after repeatedly hearing yes, they state "i'm sorry, while smiling" It really kills the ethos, logos, and pathos of the team. 2. DON'T SPREAD, some teams aren't used to it, it is obviously unfair for them, because if you are speaking too fast, they can't comprehend what your saying, and if they can't see it either, then they can't debate it. It obviously isn't helping the purpose of "anti-fragile" 3. THE ENTIRE BLOCK, shouldn't be dedicated to anti-fragile, and the 1nc shouldn't just be a feminism K, based off the one word in the entire case "horseman" used as a metaphor. It is a timesuck for the affirmative, because they wasted their time answering it, only to hear the discussion of anti-fragile 4. The affirmative team was very personal in their discussion of the U.S and the transportation infrastructure system, and when the 2nc and 1nr then stand up and say, it doesn't matter, what happened to you involving transportation infrastructure and how you wan't to help fix it isn't important, what matters is how we debate, is infuriating not just as a judge, but as a person. 5. I wouldn't say calling people rude is bullying, sure it may be mean, but the negative team, especially the 1n, were definitely not being kind or at least have the courtesy to at least apologize without gaining satisfaction from seeing the opposite team be distraught and angered by the comments made in the round. Finally 6. I would definitely would have voted on anti-fragile it is a legitimate argument, IF, executed properly, but dropping the entire case, spreading the entire argument, and the 1ac arguments regarding having any change means doing the 1ac, means that I had to default to the affirmative side. I did not wish to insult the entire LNU debate, but from my in-round experience, from what i've seen on the forums, I made a judgement call if it hurt the members or you, I apologize,
  6. 1 point
    in regards to the other teams heg advantage: "the reason i voted negative is because i didn't buy the aff's hydrogeny advantage... what is hydrogeny anyway? Well... never-the-less, neg wins because the aff didn't make it clear to me what hydrogeny was" and if that wasn't bad enough- one time we ran nietzche with a judge from a catholic school, and we used the christian morals bad shit: *entire ballot is blank* *i have one speaker point, my partner has ZERO.* and at the bottom of the ballot it read, "this was a complete waste of my time."
  7. 1 point
    This wasn't actually on the ballot, but it was part of an oral critique after the round. We were neg. The Judge: "I voted aff because I didn't really buy the kritik and I thought you put all your eggs in that basket." Me: But I kicked out of the kritik in the 2NR... The Judge: "Well... you talked about it..."
  8. -1 points
    how is this funny?...unless you are making fun of yourself for being a dumbass and running a speed k and then double covering it in the block...go back to novice douche
  9. -1 points
    Awww everyone said ya'll.are lame, but I figured give every forum the benefit of the doubt, there are different ideas that you could present and they would uniquely inform. Its sad that, I have to combine your names with your tween acronyms to create an "argument". I would say ask your coach what to say, maybe he can puppet you better than you seem to be capable of doing solo, but if I was him id have fallen on a sword. Weaaaaaak.
  10. -1 points
    so basically a policy argument is one that has to do with the topic and a kritik is one that is random and doesn't have to do with the aff? maybe im misunderstanding something but at least from what i understand now kritiks seem very dumb and un-educational given that they aren't about the topic also how does an alt work, do you just fiat no capitalism?
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...