Jump to content

rets4ydoc

Member
  • Content Count

    401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

rets4ydoc last won the day on November 5 2007

rets4ydoc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About rets4ydoc

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 09/12/1989

Profile Information

  • Name
    Cody Forrester
  • School
    Georgetown
  • Location
    Washington, D.C.

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    rets4ydoc
  1. I'm also available to judge at NDCA. I'm on Georgetown's campus so i don't have any extra costs to cover. If you need someone to coach/cut cards, I can help with that too. contact me at cody.forrester [at] gmail.com
  2. Same situation here. cody.forrester [at] gmail.com
  3. Will be at the tournament with a team that has their judging covered. Email me if your team needs rounds covered. Also, if anyone knows who i should contact at the tournament about seeing if they need to hire judges still, that would be helpful -Cody Forrester cody.forrester@gmail.com
  4. 5-10 hours a day is far from what the average college debater spends working on debate. You'll be fine debating in college without it hurting your grades. The hardest part comes in missing class, depending on your professors attendance policy--talk to them before hand. But i wouldn't let grades deter you from debating unless you try it and find that the two are truly incompatible
  5. Ex: ban the plan is competitive and doesn't attempt to solve case. It can still win if the net benefit outweighs case and you needed to run the CP to grant uniqueness to your DA or to cement a link
  6. http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=965610
  7. The Georgetown Cherry Blossom tournament is on March 1-3, 2008. If you want another area invitational tournament, this is it. We set the date to accomadate for local teams and avoid your qualifying tournaments. Policy (Novice and Open) Lincoln Douglas (novice and Open) Public Forum (Open) Student Congress Contact Michael Greenstein, Director of Forensics at Georgetown University, with questions or interest at GUDebateTournament@gmail.com
  8. Still looking. I cut a lot of cards and i can work cheap. I just need some money to cover my travel expenses.
  9. I'm availiable if anyone needs someone to cut cards/ do whatever your teams may need at the upcoming emory tournament. I debate at georgetown now and I'm already going down for the tournament. Email me with any interest or questions. Thanks Cody Forrester ccf26@georgetown.edu
  10. I think this is right and also fixes the issue of judges calling for cards unnecessarily. Earlier people suggested just a general "their cards are underhighlighted" in the overview. If you make it a card specific indict as shown here, it becomes a point of contention on what the card says, and if disagreed upon, seems to me like a good reason to call for the card after the round.
  11. theres no reason it should ever take more than 5 or so minutes let alone 13 to win T Overview (30-45 seconds) One sentence about your interp, why its necessary. What cases you allow/dont allow and why thats good, then extend your standards and voters. We meet (20 seconds) You don't usually need to spend a lot of time three pointing each of their we meets. the only situation where i could see this happening is if you have a complicated interp with a couple different violations in it, or you have more than one definition to support your interp--in which case you would just give one reason how they don't meet each word. Most of the time you should have already explained what would meet your interp in the overview, the we meet should only take a sentence to beat if you ran the right interp Generic Topicality defense [Reasonability, competing interps bad, don't vote on potential abuse, lit etc. checks, core of the topic] Most of these will just be a quick affirmative blip, and its just a matter of how many of them they make to determine how long it takes to answer. Each one should take no more than 4-5 points (for the important ones like competing interps and potential abuse) and less for things that are just dumb, like core of the topic, rvis, etc. Even if they make every generic defensive T argument, you should only spend 20-30 seconds max on each one, and i can't imagine this debate taking more than 2 minutes or so. That leaves you with give or take 2 minutes for the counter interp and standards debate, given that were assuming the T debate takes 5 minutes, I see no reason why that isn't enough when you dont have to do things like read cards or do too much evidence analysis. It's a poor strategic decision to ever spend too much time on T. Topicality debates are often won on 2AR's that focus on one thing, like one offensive standard for their counter interp, we meet, or competing interps bad. There's no pressure on the 1AR if you spend 13 minutes on T and he/she doesn't have to go to any other flow. The pressure comes when they know they have to spend a lot of time on a voter like T but still get to 3 or 4 other flows, thats how you get the undercoverage thats helps you win T debates.
  12. settle down, he's saying that it helps. i.e. if two good kids are trying to get in, the one who's school sends more people might have a better chance. he's not saying they let in idiots just because the school they go to
  13. assuming their reasons for the RVI are that T is a time and strategy skew, there are a few good arguments you can make. First, putting an RVI on T is usually a time skew in and of itself, if time skew is a voting issue, then you vote negative. the second one specific to the RVI on T i can think of is that if the shell is just clearly a waste and not true, then they dont have to spend much time answering it. Also, there's no way to discriminate when an RVI is true, therefore their argument effectually eliminates the possibility for the negative to run topicality, which has obvious implications to fairness and education because affs aren't at all strained by the resolution Finally, you can make all the generic defensive arguments against time and strategy skew claims. Time and strategy skews are inevitable and just a part of debate, the fact that youre spending time on it proves its not a time skew, and in any situation where you extend it in the block or go for it, it probably isnt just trying to suck up 2AC time. People also like to make the argument that there's no reason topicality is any more of a time skew than any other strategic argument, you could do the same thing with a disad or pic. That's all i got
  14. The CP isnt competetive textually or functionally. Plan: Add 1000 Volunteers to the peace corps for molaria CP: Add 2000 Volunteers to the peace corps for molaria Perm: Add 1000 Volunteers to the peace corps for molaria and add 2000 volunteers to the peace corps for molaria. There's no reason you can't combine the two, and assuming your net benefit is just better solvency, the perm would solve best. Your better shot is to do slightly less volunteers, its competetive and you can argue a linear net benefit or a risk of a net benefit of spending based DA's
×
×
  • Create New...