Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/15/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Inspired by something Ryan said in a vDebate-- what do you think are some of the funniest/stupidest/worst/best/most overused cliches in the debate community? Here are some on my mind: "Their limits EXPLODE the topic" "Even if you don't buy that..." "We probably solve" (unnecessary use of the word 'probably') "Capitalism is a protection racket" "And, we outweigh on magnitude because extinction outweighs all impacts"
  2. 1 point
    This file is all I've ever needed to beat a kritik, comes with explainations of what the evidence is saying and how to use it. All you need to know is how it relates to the kritik in the round, so my usual go-to CX question is something like "what is the goal of the K" or something to that effect. Another good CX question is to ask how the K specifically links to your aff, because chances are, the link isn't super specific. You're main priority against a kritik shouldn't really be to disprove it entirely, because that's not an argument you can really win in most places, you should be trying to prove to the judge that the K can't achieve its own solvency as well that doing your plan is good. You're not gonna beat the links, and you're not gonna impact turn. My personal strategy always involved most of the following actions: linking the neg back to the K especially if their link to the aff is generic (kind of hard if you don't know about the K they read, so very optional), read solvency deficits to the alt, permutating is almost mandatory, and weighing the aff against the K and essentially using your own case as a disad to the alternative. These are some pretty basic strategies that I used in a Division 5A HS in Idaho. What JSamuel said is good, reading Ks is a good way to submerge yourself into the thought process of kritiks; to defeat the K debater, you must become the K debater.Cede the Political too good.docx
  3. 1 point
    First, in cross-ex, don't let them get away with using convoluted terms. If they use a phrase such as "dialectical materialism" or something like that, stop them right there and make them tell you what that means. If it doesn't make sense to you, continue to ask until you understand it. Usually, if you ask the right questions, you can show how your opponents don't really understand their kritik much better than you do. Second, use open evidence. If you guys are class 3A, most of the Ks you see will be straight out of open evidence. For example, if your opponent is running the Psychoanalysis K, just find the Psychoanalysis K file in open evidence, look for the "Aff Answers" section, and boom! Most of your basic K answers will be right there, and you don't even have to understand the K to use the answers in round. Third, study up. Just check out a few camp files on some common Ks. Read the Alts. This will help you tremendously. EDIT: I just thought of a forth thing I highly recommend doing. Find yourself a good old, classic kritik - like the Cap K - and cook it up with your partner and run it yourself. I'm sure that everyone on this site can agree that actually running a kritik is the best way to learn about kritiks. And, since Ks are highly effective, you'll probably get some Ws along the way. That's what I call a win-win.
  4. 1 point
    I'm glad to hear your opinion has developed, however I see a few problems with this new outlook as described in your post. 1) Your point seems to rest on a set of observations which you haven't described in detail or proven can be generalized. This may be a "problem" wherever you are, but I haven't seen an inordinate amount of abuse based on a lack of genuineness where I debated, and I debated in a circuit where Ks were often more common than policy arguments. 2) This sounds a lot like authenticity-testing. This is to say, you probably have in your mind some idea of what a "genuinely" marginalized or expressed identity would look like, the abuses you believe you have witness do not hold up to this standard. The trouble is other people have different experiences, different perspectives, etc., which all make it difficult to say that there is a single genuine mode of expressing marginality. "Genuineness" is really not a standard by which you should judge someone or the way they argue, in or out of debate rounds. Of course, sometimes there are clear abuses. If I - as someone who is basically comfortable with the label cisgender - were to say "I'm trans and I want to express my rage" for the duration of a single debate round only to assume all the privileges, behaviors, etc. I had before that round, that would be clearly problematic. I would be commodifying or misappropriating the label "transgender" in order to win a debate round. This would be bad, and I think you would agree. However, I've never seen anything like this firsthand, and the only time I've heard about it was in reference to a policy team who used a similar argument to get out of a single link. Here's another example: a team of two black men would wear dashikis at tournaments, even though they usually would just wear ordinary clothes in most other settings I saw them. That could be what you are referring to, but I wouldn't be able to tell based on your description. They'd be changing their clothes and might make an argument about it, but that wouldn't necessarily be wrong. 3) None of these problems are unique to Ks, K teams, minorities, or any other group. I already mentioned that a couple of white guys who read policy arguments temporarily jettisoned their gender to get out of a link. Furthermore, literally every segment of the debate community distorts literature. It's virtually impossible to make competitive arguments that clash with one another if you adhere strictly to the text and context of your cards. This applies to policy proposals, scenario-planning, critical theory, performance, and virtually every debate round. Lastly, "altering their appearances" is something plenty of debaters do; surely you've seen people put on suits or makeup for tournaments? The same principle would apply to the example I gave about dashikis. Look, overall I'm glad you've decided Ks aren't the problem. But it's next to impossible to comment on your post in a positive manner without specifics. All of the points I've listed are inference based your previous interactions with this forum. You seem to be attributing your grievances to people "abusing" Ks, and not to people "abusing" policy, and you seem to think this is because debate is "far left." It's not, and the appropriation of identity is not leftist in any case.; I've given you several leftist critiques of both what you have described and your position.
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    "Counterplan: The EU should Insert Pl... do the plan" Everyone's done this at some point.
  7. 1 point
    Kicking T is pretty much never abusive. You can kick it in the 2NR with no problem. Where you start to get into trouble is when it comes to kicking advocacies such as counterplans and K alts. That opens up conditionality debates and stuff like that. But T shells don’t have a status. Sometimes people will run an RVI on T, but that’s not a very common move in policy debate. It’s just considered kinda silly. And it doesn’t necessarily have a connection with whether you kick the T shell—people will argue that even having read the shell is abusive. So yeah, don’t worry about kicking T in the block.
  8. 1 point
    IMO: A. Use Evidence if you have any to disprove their claims. B. Say their Claims are unwarrented with any evidence or anybody else who believes these claims. C. Say that non-Evidence based Debates just lead to a debate of morality and feelings. Not truly evidence, degrades the level of debate that you have. D. Extend Case and do Impact Calc/ Case S K or Case O/W the K E. Framing.
  9. 1 point
    Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. ---Breakdown of Resolution--- The 2017-18 Policy Debate topic concerns the federal government's role in reforming K-12 schools in the United States. The following is a breakdown of the text of the resolution. "Resolved:" -- this appears on every resolution -- it is used to indicate that the following proposal is the subject of the debate. The Affirmative team argues in favor of federal education reform by presenting a plan. The Negative attempts to refute that plan. "The United States federal government" -- this regards the central, federal government of the United States of America -- it was established in a relationship with the early American colonies, follows a Constitution written by the "Founding Fathers," and is made up of three branches: -The Judicial Branch is comprised of the United States Supreme Court as well as other federal courts. It has the purpose of interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and ruling on relevant issues. -The Legislative Branch is comprised of the United States Congress (the House and the Senate which include Representatives and Senators, respectively) and has the primary purpose of drafting legislation. Congress has the "power of the purse" to allocate all federal funding such as for legislation or for agency budgets. There are also legislative departments. -The Executive Branch is comprised of the President of the United States, his cabinet/administration, and executive agencies. The President of the United States has a number of particular duties, including the authority to veto or to sign legislation into law, and to interpret and execute legislation. Agencies manage the regulation of various aspects of U.S. domestic policy such as agriculture, health, and -- importantly -- education. The Department of Education (ED, DoE, or DoEd) has the role of interpreting and implementing legislation through education regulations. The Secretary of Education in the Department of Education is Betsy DeVos. "Should" -- this word indicates desirability. The Affirmative should argue that it is desirable for the federal government to reform education. This word is also the source of "fiat" for the Affirmative--they don't have to prove that the government will reform education or that they want to reform education, merely that they should. That makes the resolution "normative." "Substantially" -- this means "to a considerable extent" -- while some people will interpret "substantially increase" as a particular, quantitative account, most debaters consider the word asinine and, mostly, ignore it. "Increase" -- this means "to make greater" -- the main discussion regarding this word relates to whether or not an increase necessitates a pre-existing extent. Does the Affirmative have to increase a form of regulation/funding that already exists? Or may they increase overall reform by creating a new form of regulation/funding? That is up for debate. "Its" -- this means "belonging to" -- the funding/regulation must belong to the United States, and not to another entity. The primary instance in which this word will come under scrutiny is in the case of private education -- the federal government currently does not fund/regulate private schools. So, is it an increase of "its" regulation/funding to reform them? "Funding" -- this usually means money, but could be interpreted as other "financial resources" -- because the federal government technically does not have the Constitutional authority to directly affect education, they often offer financial incentives to schools and state and local governments in the form of grants that have education-related "strings attached." "And/Or" -- most people agree that this means "one, the other, or both." Some odd interpretations say it only means "or." This means, the Affirmative may do any of the following within the bounds of the resolution, which has been criticized for including 2 "and/or" phrases: -fund and regulate elementary and secondary -fund and regulate elementary -fund and regulate secondary -fund elementary and secondary -fund elementary -fund secondary -regulate elementary and secondary -regulate elementary -regulate secondary "Regulation" -- there are two primary definitions of regulation. One stems from "a regulation" which is a rule drafted and implemented by an executive agency. This interpretation suggests the Affirmative should "make a regulation" about K-12 education. Another stems from "the act of regulation" -- this interpretation is broader, and simply argues that the Affirmative should "increase federal control" over education. "Of" -- this word means "related to" -- the funding/regulation should be "of" education. It's more of an auxiliary word. "Elementary/Secondary" -- most agree that these, together, comprise K-12. There is some debate over what years are covered in each. Some interpretations exclude middle school from "elementary and secondary." Debates may also occur over whether kindergarten or pre-school is included in addition to debates over career training and teacher training as a form of education. "Education" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether education is formal instruction in a school, or merely things that are learned by people. The former is more limited and specific. The latter is more broad. "In" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether this means "within" or "throughout" -- should the plan occur "somewhere within" the United States? Or must it occur "throughout" the United States? "The United States" -- most agree this means the territory of the United States. Debates may occur over whether "the United States" includes: military bases, Native American reservations, non-continental territories/possessions of the United States, etc. The text of the resolution is examined when the "topicality" of the Affirmative plan is called into question. For more in-depth interpretations and definitions, see topicality files posted on Open Evidence. ---Specific Arguments--- This guide, provided by Millennial Speech and Debate free online, provides a detailed description of the arguments that were produced at debate camps over the summer for the education topic. Below, I will cover some of the most important arguments and concepts to understand for your first tournament. This list is extremely non-comprehensive. It's just--from the top of my head--some of the biggest arguments on the topic as of yet. -Affirmatives--Funding -- many Affirmatives will offer a significant increase in the funding of education. Funding may occur in areas such as STEM, Native American schools, a particular type of curriculum, equalizing funding between "rich" and "poor" schools, and other forms of increased revenue for education. -Affirmatives--Regulation -- many Affirmatives will attempt to regulate and control schools, such as by eliminating the presence of military recruiters, banning the use of standardized testing or "zero-tolerance policies," or perhaps by attempting to force schools to accept federal testing, curriculum, or equality standards. -Disadvantages--Federalism DA -- as I mentioned before, the Constitution doesn't actually provide for a federal role in education. According to the 10th Amendment, any areas not delegated to the federal government remain with "the people" (lower levels of government like the states). Many fear that the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with the diverse educational circumstances across America. They also fear that invading on states' rights in education could set a precedent that erodes the relationship of power called "federalism" that ensures a limited federal role in politics. This will be discussed further on the "states CP." -Disadvantages--Spending DA--Deficit -- this more general spending DA argues that excessive federal spending would crash the economy, and that the federal government can't afford to substantially increase its funding of education. -Disadvantages--Spending DA--Trade-Off -- this argues that funding for education trades-off with other funding -- such as for the military or for other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. The impacts to those disadvantages depends on what is being traded off with. -Disadvantages--Politics DA--Base -- this argues that Trump must "hold onto" his base in order to retain rational leadership -- if the government passed an unpopular education reform, the public hated it, and Trump's base abandoned him, he might try to make a diversion by acting irrationally and attacking another country to regain popularity (North Korea, yo). -Disadvantages--Politics DA--Agenda -- this argues that the government either will currently pass an important piece of legislation that the Affirmative distracts from and keeps from passing or that the popularity of the plan will empower the government to pass an unfavorable piece of legislation. The "scenarios" for the politics DA change frequently and include such topics as tax reform, healthcare, and the debt ceiling. -Disadvantages--Politics DA--Midterms -- this argues that the popularity or unpopularity of the plan would have a significant effect on the results of the mid-term congressional elections. The impacts depend on which party "controls" the House and the Senate. -Counterplans--States CP -- simply, this argues that instead of federal implementation of the plan, the state governments should implement the plan. A particular form of it -- disciplined devolution -- still has the federal government as an actor, but gives states the authority to develop strategies for doing the Affirmative. -Counterplans--Privatization CP -- this counterplan shifts from a public to a private model of education, arguing that it would be more effective in implementing the topic area of the Affirmative. -Counterplans--Process CP -- process CPs include various alternative mechanisms for funding/regulating education such as researching about how the plan would work, consulting with teachers or teachers unions, or opening a process of "negotiated rule-making." -Counterplans--Actor CP -- this counterplan might have the Affirmative be done by a different actor, such as by the Supreme Court if you use the executive, or vis versa, or any other "changing around" of who does the plan and why that might be a better way to do it. -Kritik--Capitalism K -- you guessed it -- education is capitalist, and that's pretty bad. We should probably revert to Communism, or maybe just some critical pedagogy that enables us to resist capitalism. -Kritik--Miscellaneous -- I don't really have the time to discuss every objection there is to the status quo education system -- let's just say, there's a lot. Expect to debate criticisms related to how the education system is: over-productive, racist, sexist, ableist, LGBTQ exclusive, and many other types of "bad." Some say that compulsory education shouldn't exist in the first place. Books have been written about debate, and I could never cover as many things as I would have liked to, but hopefully this is a useful introduction. Please, please, please reply here or PM me with any more specific questions you have and let me know if there's anything I can do to help you prepare for your tournament.
  10. 1 point
    Can we hear what this aff was now that the season is long over?
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...