Jump to content

ldsk

Member
  • Content Count

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ldsk

  1. oh hunter, you don't give us enough credit: "Fiscal Discipline" you have to admit that it was the greated fiscal discipline disad that you've ever seen in your life haha And to whoever was bashing on Kaitlin Charles, idk if you've ever seen her other rounds... but she was really sick during the round and she is honestly as good as Karen although for some reason she doesn't seem to get as much credit.
  2. ldsk

    NFLs Results

    can someone post the posting from rounds 9 and 10?
  3. ldsk

    Idaho State

    IDK if there is anyone else from the B division on this site, but South Fremont qualified 4 teams, bonneville qualified 2, and i think that century qualified 2 but i'm not sure about that one.
  4. newer evidence, or that it just provides a bigger brink. or run more specific disads
  5. the difference is that topicality is actually a part of the debate, being there late is what is stopping the debate from happening, and if someone went aff when they were supposed to be neg then you can run theory saying that flip side debat is good, and that they are being ABUSIVE while giving warrants to your claim, which is what you should do in a good T debate anyway.
  6. Shuman, i think that your idea for a topicality shell makes the topicality debates that you engage in too risky. Maybe i'm completely misunderstanding it, so correct me if I'm wrong. First, if you are simply arguing that topicality is a voter because it is a rule of the game then there is no competing interpretations debate, it seems to me that if topicality is simply a rule of the game then the affirmative would almost always win on a reasonablity standard. This seems like an uphill debate to me because it is far easier to win based off of competing interpretations. Second, there is no basis for in round abuse in the round, therefore if the judge doesn't vote on potential abuse it would be harder to win. Third, if you don't ever argue abuse then you can't show that your interpretation is better then the affirmative interpretation, and if you cannot prove that it is better then you would lose most debates based on very vague counterinterpretations that the aff provides, and if it is not a debate over the best definition then limits don't really matter and teams could win on very squirelly affs. It seems to me like it just makes more sence to read a shell based off of competing interpretations that doesn't take nearly as long to read. Also, the whole idea of using evidence for your standards and voters seems pointless to me. It is just somebody elses analysis on topicality, why not make that yourself. And there is no reason why your author's analysis would outweigh the analydics of the affirmative team. Why take the risk of losing topicality and the round when you can go for multiple positions and then go straight T in the 2nr if you feal like you are winning it? Just my thoughts.
×
×
  • Create New...