Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/21/19 in Posts

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
    Hello, I am done debating you. Your debates lack a clear and consistent structure, they are extremely dull, and most importantly, your Moderator is a horrible arbitrator. I gave you one live debate, and that is more than fair. You only wanted one live debate and my rules explicitly said me debating you was contingent on you leaving this site alone. Additionally, post the link to the video of our debate so the members on this site can hear it. We have waited patiently for a week, but you have prolonged the video. To the members of this site: I am sorry for the Manhood Academy coming back to this site. I thought we were rid of them. If they continue to plaque this site, I am sorry. I do not wish to debate them anymore for the aforementioned reasons. Best Wishes!
  3. 1 point
    Which is exactly why I said whether or not the difference exists depends on how you spin. Imo, the distinction doesn't exist in most debates, but there are those that believe T-USfg doesnt make a totalizing claim about the state being good, just necessary for clash, where framework debates tend to come down more to the state goood/bad debate. Just explaining the thinking behind those that claim there is a difference.
  4. 1 point
    Wrong. Framework isn't 'excluding the discussion of the aff,' otherwise 'topical version of the aff' wouldn't be an argument used in framework. At its core, framework is "T+" -- it's a T-USFG violation paired with a methodology/solvency debate. Depending on the aff, people usually pair this with other T violations, such as T-curtail or T-domestic surveillance. This is why you see the familiar 'resolved = legislative action' paired with both T standards (limits and ground) and with cards like 'Law key to address anti-blackness.' If it lacks the latter part it's really just T-USFG. None of this is an exclusion of the discussion of the aff. Unless a team is making poor choices, the whole point is that you can talk about racism, sexism, etc. within the context of legislative action (usually contextualize to the resolution).
  5. 1 point
    Obviously you need to do this. But having framework can drastically help your chances of winning. Plus, if a team is going to be kritikal, they need to be prepped for framework.
  6. 1 point
    the name you put in the speech doc
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
  9. -1 points
    "war" it's a war machine fueled by the united states murdering over a thousand innocent civilians
  10. -1 points
    LD debate is based on values and morals. The two sides are the affirmative, argues for the resolution, and the negative, argues against the resolution. This is the basic structure. I affirm or negate The Value is (something) for example, morality The Criterion is (something) for example, Utilitarianism (you can sometimes run a role of the ballet or a role of the judge, but you usually don't run that) Contention 1 Contention 2 Contention 3 Please vote aff or neg You can also have advantages for the aff, and disadvantages for the neg. The negative also has Kritiks and counterplans. Both sides can run theory. The structure is, A. is the interpretation, this is saying the thing you believe is abusive. B. is the violation, this is saying your opponent did the thing that's abusive C. is the standard, this the saying why it is abusive for X, Y, Z reasons. D. is the voters, this is what you should do to the debater.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00
  • Create New...