Jump to content

rjk

Member
  • Content Count

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

rjk last won the day on November 9 2011

rjk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

198 Excellent

About rjk

  • Rank
    awesome
  • Birthday 09/05/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
    ryan
  • School
    UNL/Norfolk
  • Location
    Lincoln, NE
  1. I've never actually attended NDI other than judging at the camp tournament, but I've had some students I've worked with attend for the past several years. I can think of one student in particular whose abilities absolutely skyrocketed from going to NDI - he was someone I was expecting to discontinue policy debate after his first year, but came back much stronger the next season and it poised to turn himself into a legitimate contender over the next several years. NDI won't give you a lot of practice in evidence production- if you want that, go somewhere else. What it will give you more than most camps in the country is consistent practice rounds. Read the staff list - not only do you see some decorated names, but you'll notice that there are quite a lot of them relative to a small student enrollment. You'll get more one-on-one time here than anywhere else. I'd note also that the staff list is incomplete, because members of the Nebraska debate community generally hop in and help out where and when they can. It is that great of a community. Overall, if you want rounds or have students who need rounds, NDI is by far the best deal you'll get.
  2. Lay judges aren't looking to judge an entire debate. There will be one or two sets of arguments that they're following and understanding well. Perhaps it is something they have a personal investment in. Most of the time, you can see it on their face or observe their flowing or note-taking habits... if they're writing something down more in one part of the debate, that's the argument you need to win. Also, you should lie, cheat, and steal, but be charming while doing so. They don't know the game, so why confine yourself to the rules?
  3. rjk

    Westside

    Anyone have results? Or a transcript of Ward Churchill's post-tournament speech?
  4. The post above me is really good. The only thing I'd add is that as a 2AR, show confidence in what the 1AR said, even if it wasn't pretty or particularly good. A 2AR with the right attitude can turn blippy tagline extensions into something more than that without making it look like that's what they're doing. This also will help your novice partner's confidence going forward.
  5. rjk

    Nebraska 2012-2013

    LSW - Lincoln High Zach/Hayden won 1st place; Fremont Nate/Don at second. Consolation final between Millard West Wenbo/Jay and Norfolk Drew/Aaron, which I believe MW won. Norfolk 1st & 2nd place - Millard West Brian/Jack and Wenbo/Jay. Consolation final between Fremont Craig/Ricky and Millard South Angel/Lee, which Fremont won a 2-1. I don't have squashfest results because I wasn't there. Good luck at Millard West this weekend y'all.
  6. Just so you can defend the theory/framing debate of the perm: If you're going to run a counter-perm you should be aware that it isn't really a permutation. It's a reframing of your alternative as a floating PIK, or an alternative that doesn't entirely exclude plan action. This is a really old trick-- you don't do enough work on the alt in the 2AC so in the block it becomes plan minus. The purpose of a permutation is to test whether the alternative advocacy (CP or kritik alt) is competitive with the 1AC. Presumption switches to the affirmative when the negative runs an advocacy of any kind, meaning that if the aff proves that the alternative is possible to enact when the plan passes, the argument is not competitive and the judge votes affirmative. You need to know this stuff because I think (smart) affirmatives won't let you get away with this argument, especially with framing it as a perm. Having said that, framing the permutation as merely a sequencing argument -- which it's not -- can be very successful because you'll literally always be able to win, unless the aff is impact turning your ideology, plan is a better idea after whatever your alternative was. Just be ready to defend it at a conceptual level.
  7. Is this really what we want the activity to be about at the high school level? National polls ranking 15-18 year olds? Meh.
  8. That could be true, if all libertarians weren't jokes on principle.
  9. Speaking as someone who debates in front of stock issues judges regularly on the NFA-LD circuit, don't do it that way. If you're going for inherency, find the lit that says why inherency matters and set up a shell with an interpretation of what constitutes inherency (structural, attitudinal, gap, etc.), a violation with standards and voters grounded in the literature. Do the same thing if you're going for solvency defense. Look through old copies of Argumentation and Advocacy and other journals for some interesting definitions. Don't bother with harms takeouts or significance arguments. They'll care about it just as much as you do, and these arguments tend to be less likely to be round winners even amongst stock issue judges. Finally, stock issues judges are almost always happy to hear and vote on disads as well. You don't have to whip out the inherency file right away if you're not comfortable with it.
  10. rjk

    Presumption

    Your scenario only has the potential to hold true if there is no clearly articulated net benefit to the counterplan. Even in a world where the negative isn't allowed to kick out of a counterplan, a PIC or consult scenario with any risk of a net benefit will make the question of presumption unnecessary. The affirmative cannot and should never win on presumption. It is true that the negative loses presumption because the notion of presumption exists as a default stance against change-- in a world where the negative advocates a departure from the status quo, presumption is no longer an issue. Presumption switches to the affirmative only in the sense that presumption is with the aff plan over the negative--the negative team/debater now has the burden of providing authoritative solvency evidence about why the counterplan solves the aff, something most affs let neg teams get away with without question. In the scenario you describe, arguing against the affirmative solvency would be ultimately ineffective--when a counterplan comes into play, the debate is about which advocacy solves the impacts of the aff best-- and the neg will win that debate if the aff runs solvency take-outs on itself. Also, it's really disingenuous and probably bad for your ethos to do something like that.
×
×
  • Create New...