Jump to content

ABC123

Member
  • Content Count

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ABC123 last won the day on September 5 2008

ABC123 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

117 Excellent

About ABC123

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 12/08/1991

Profile Information

  • Location
    On a boat
  1. Ankur, I really don't think that your opinion is that far off from many circuit judges' view of debate. What you've just said seems to be to be awfully similar to something in many judges' philosophy. What I have copied and pasted below is from Bill Batterman's judging philosophy and directly quotes Tripp Rebrovicks' (two judges who are frequently on late elimination debate panels and, therefore, hold views in line with the most successful teams). I have a sneaking suspicious that many debaters do not know what the word "risk" means. Patently illogical statements that include the term seem to be proliferating: "There's only a risk that we're topical," "we control uniqueness so there's only a risk of a link," "there's always a risk that we solve," etc. are all absurd non-arguments. Tripp Rebrovick explains this well in his judging philosophy: 1. One team wins each argument, all of the way. Short explanation: offense/defense is a bad way of deciding debates. I'm very unlikely to conclude that there is "always a risk" of an argument. Just because you asserted something, it doesn't make it so. Long explanation: someone once told me that I “don’t think in terms of risk,” and I partially agree, at least in so far as most people understand the term. I abhor attempts to quantify debate arguments (30% risk of link; 45% risk of a solvency deficit); I don’t think we should conflate truth and tech under the heading of “risk.” Here’s another way of putting it: risk only applies to likelihood of something actually happening in the world (e.g. the “risk of escalation” of a war is low because of deterrence), not to the likelihood of an argument being won or being true (e.g. there cannot be a “risk of a solvency deficit” because of a certain argument. There either is or is not a deficit; it is only the impact of that deficit that is resolved through risk. There cannot be a “risk of a link”; there either is or is not a link – the ‘risk’ is how large or small it is, when connected with an impact.) This might seem like a semantic distinction, but I don’t think so. Arguments in a given debate must be resolved in favor of one team. Arguments are either won or lost; risk helps determine the relative importance of a won-or-lost argument in the context of the rest of the debate. Why does this matter? What you might think is "defense" is often sufficient in my mind to defeat an argument.
  2. Yes, bad judges make bad decisions? I think that you are massively overstating the number of circuit judges who make decisions solely based off the fact that there is no offense on the flow. Circuit style debate takes no preference on offense defense (as defined by Bill Batterman which, at the moment, is the only definition of circuit debate given). There has, if anything, been a strong backlash against the exclusively offense/defense paradigm and not once this year at over ten 'circuit' tournaments, the TOC and NDCA included, did I have a judge tell us we lost because we had 'no offense'. Sure, a few 'circuit' judges (cough MSU graduates cough) might believe strongly in an offense/defense paradigm and in those instances one has to adapt (an ability viewed as oh so important earlier). I don't think those judges are nearly as prevalent as you seem to believe or as stuck in their ways - sometimes all it takes is initiating an offense/defense paradigm bad debate at the top of a particular flow and if you won that paradigm is bankrupt, I think every single judge at the TOC and most 'national circuit' tournaments would abandon the offense/defense paradigm in that instance.
  3. I think everyone who has experience in more than one type of debate will agree that policy debate is far more educational than any other type of speech or debate available to high schoolers or college students. It is literally a never-ending research project where one has to present and articulately argue for and against different arguments in thousands of times greater depth than any other activity. Both the breadth and the depth of education policy debate offers exceed any other speech or debate activity thousandfold (with the possible exception of LD, largely because LD has come to be a 1 v 1 version of policy debate). The reason policy debate is losing people is because it is so difficult and time consuming. Public forum attracts kids because its an easy alternative that doesn't require the research, practice, or even debating time that policy requires. You will likely say this is just a personal bias because of my experience in policy debate, but i know of a few policy debaters who have done public forum and its simply not a even a close comparison. At one school, novices in policy debate who switched to public forum made it to semi-finals of the TOC in public forum that year.
  4. Semis: MBA d. Carrolton Bronx d. CPS MBA + Bronx = co-champions
  5. does anyone have northwestern?
  6. The way good teams make the argument plan focus good is by saying plan enactment and the plan text should be what the negative garners links off of, not the entire 1AC.
  7. http://georgetowndebateseminar.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post.html Without explicitly saying plan focus, in the first lecture Jessica Yeats makes the argument why all kritiks, to be successful, cannot link solely to plan enactment because then it becomes much easier for the affirmative to win through claims like try or die. The argument isn't a reason in and of itself to reject all critiques, its a reason to reject all links not claimed off of plan enactment.
  8. ABC123

    Arendt Kritik

    Is it even possible to fail as badly as you just failed?
  9. If you want to familiarize yourself with some of the more psychoanalytic jargon/arguments, I really recommend starting with Lacan and the Political by Stav (I know not Zizek) - i think the entire book explains the a lot of the terms and whatnot Zizek talks about in simpler and easier ways to understand. I know I started with Lacan and the Political before I opened a Zizek book and it helped a lot. If you just want to read a Zizek book for the sake of reading one, however, I agree with the above people on Conversations with Zizek.
  10. ABC123

    Evidence K

    im looking for evidence supporting this position too, i can haz some?
  11. everyone gets in to DDI as Synergy said above
  12. I disagree - if your a sophomore and you can go to DDI, I'd certainly recommend it over DDW (or any other camp). The instruction given at DDI can be useful for nearly all experience levels and something is too advanced, you can speak to the instructors individualy and I guarantee they will take more than the time necessary to explain it to help you. I think its always better to debate against good competition, which is another thing provided by DDI - the numerous practice rounds and the tournament will ensure that you can work on developing the skills you've learned.
  13. What sort of success need one have to apply? Are bids necessary to get in? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...