Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mdawgig last won the day on August 13 2018

mdawgig had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

249 Excellent

About mdawgig

  • Rank
    Reppin' the RH
  • Birthday 02/16/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Rose Hill/Kansas State
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ShowResults.aspx LMU Ewing/Mollison is 31-4 for the season (89% win-loss). And are pretty boss.
  2. Whatever you do, do NOT have them be double 1's or do ins-n-outs. It's not long-term sustainable and they won't grow as much as they need to in order to be competitive in the future. Have them be the 2A/1N. The 1NR has a ton of prep and you can block out almost everything for the 2AC.
  3. I increased Jared Nelson's warning level. I am still waiting on confirmation of db8ed's blocking. After that occurs, I will lock this thread and re-open the previous one.
  4. I have sent requests to supermods to remove the troll accounts that are flooding this board. After I get confirmation that this has occurred, I will re-open the threads.
  5. NFL Policy Debate Andover Central Johnson/McMillen (SUNNFL) Blue Valley North Evans/Philips (TTNFL) Blue Valley Southwest Arney/Super (TTNFL) Blue Valley Southwest Kota/Marine (TTNFL) Buhler Boor/Steffen (WKNFL) Field Kindley Mueller/White (SKNFL) Field Kindley Wright/Mecom (SKNFL) Fort Scott Weilert/Ramsey (SKNFL) Garden City Villagran/Dawes (WKNFL) Kapaun Mt. Carmel Klausmeyer/McHenry (SUNNFL) Newton Bartel/Runge (WKNFL) Olathe Northwest Trent/DePriest (EKNFL) Shawnee Heights Eskilson/Hermann (FHNFL) Shawnee Mission West Purohit/Lekie (EKNFL) Shawnee Mission East Throckmorton/Ramaswami (EKNFL) Topeka Ashley/Zimmerman (FHNFL) Washburn Rurual Cummings/Dasaraju (FHNFL) Wichita East Shah/Vannavong (SUNNFL) Wichita East Tran/Tran (SUNNFL) Alternates Lawrence Tunget/Glanzman (1st alternate, EKNFL) DeSoto Riley/Kaul (2nd alternate, EKNFL) SMW Scanlan/Norman (3rd alternate, EKNFL) Manhattan DeLoach/Seaton (1st alternate, FHNFL) Derby Mascharka/Rose (1st alternate, SKNFL) Trinity McKinney/Werhan (1st alternate, SUNNFL) Mulvane Dennison/Wilkes (2nd alternate, SUNNFL) Blue Valley Carabello/Theisen (1st alternate, TTNFL) St. Thomas Aquinas Goza/Watson (2nd alternate, TTNFL) Blue Valley Southwest Banks/Locke (3rd alternate, TTNFL) CFL Policy Debate Blue Valley - Brower/Shull (KCKSCFL) Blue Valley North - Evans/Phillips (KCKSCFL) Blue Valley Southwest - Marine/Kota (KCKSCFL) Blue Valley West - Birzer/Saiedian (KCKSCFL) Buhler - Boor/Steffen (WCFL) Hutchinson - Blake/Torrez (WCFL) Kapaun Mt. Carmel - O'Donnell/Scott (WCFL) Kapaun Mt. Carmel - Klausmeyer/McHenry (WCFL) Liberal - Chacon/Heronemus (SCFL) Liberal - Buchanan/Proctor (SCFL) McPherson - Myers/Shaughnessy (WCFL) Shawnee Mission East - Carey/Hill (KCKSCFL) Shawnee Mission West - Norman/Scanlan (KCKSCFL) Silver Lake - DeShazo/Klucas (SCFL) Silver Lake - Brokaw/Landis (SCFL) Silver Lake - Cunningham/Kampsen (SCFL) Please post results if you know them. Additionally, if anyone knows alternates, please post them.
  6. I STRONGLY disagree with that part of the post. If you're debating a faster team, they're going to spread you out a whole hell of a lot. Condo bad can be a strategic (and sometime, the only) 2AR option where you're super spread out vertically by the 2NR. Keeping it alive in the 1AR could mean the difference between a 2AR that has NO chance to answer whatever work the 2NR did and one that has a fighting chance. Also, another tip for debating a team that is considerably faster: MAKE THE DEBATE SMALLER. Kick a case flow in the 2AC to mitigate some 1NC args, read args that are generally large time tradeoffs (a quick framework arg on a K, for example, will often result in the block reading 4-5 points to answer it), and have the 1AR go for fewer args from the 2AC (this is to ensure you go deeper and give the 2AR more leeway, instead of shadow-extending more points that can't become viable 2AR options). On the neg side, that means collapsing down to fewer positions in the block (for example, the 2NC takes case and the disad, the 1NR takes T or the K), making smart distinctions, having word efficient blocks, and exploiting a few key 2AC weaknesses instead of trying to read tons of links and impacts for every flow (for example, if they didn't answer your 'cap is the root cause of everything' arg very well, make that a huge part of the debate and impact it out really well instead of reading tons of cards and not developing the thesis of the K). That generally also means you should try to keep out of debates that generally end up being card vs. card battles - ie, heg good/bad can devolve fairly quickly into "who can read more impact scenarios." That's obviously not a debate you want to be getting into.
  7. I agree with most of the post except this part - you're thinking backwards. The 2A should be in control of aff rounds - THEY need to communicate to the 1A what args NEED to be in the 1AR because the 2A should be thinking in terms of what their 2AR needs to look like. Prioritize. If you're a 2A communicating to your partner, say "on the X flow, I want args A, B, and C [etc] for the 2AR. If you can get to them, D and E are next in line," etc, on down the line. A lot of bad 1AR's have a habit of starting at the top of the flow and vainly trying to extend every argument - poorly - or running out of time and only extending bad or defensive args that were near the top. This is because of lack of communication. Doing it like this ensures that the 2A can give an effective speech that includes all necessary args to make a STRATEGY, instead of just an ad-hoc group of args that don't work together.
  8. mdawgig

    Islam K?

    That's not a reason not to read the arg. Like, cap good is defs a link against a cap K, but that's not a reason to NOT read cap good. Anything you say against a K is probably a link. That's not a reason to not make arguments. Yeah, you'll probably link. That's why you go for other forms of offense like the perm or impact turn. That's not to say "Islam law bad" is a good arg - YoungGun's idea is much more nuanced and viable - but running away from an arg because it's a link is like running away from a grill because it's gonna get really, really hot: it's necessary to do anything.
  9. mdawgig

    W-east Varsity

    This is not correct. Manhattan PW won the tourney. BVW BS took second.
  10. I believe this is more generally done by affs when the neg doesn't read an exclusive definition (though I may be wrong). For example, the aff is X. The neg reads an interp that says "development is Y, Z, and A." Aff would read a card/interp that says "development includes X," and then say "perm - include our aff in their interpretation." Generally, this is combined with analysis about how: 1. Their interp doesn't specifically EXCLUDE the aff, which means their author doesn't specifically indicate that X is NOT development 2. The perm solves back all of the offense - unless the neg has really good offense about why including THIS SPECIFIC aff is genuinely bad for debate, the aff will generally argue that including none of their arguments realte to the value of the aff. That combined with the fact that any good aff will generally make arguments about why discussing their specific aff is good for education will make the perm net-beneficial. Now, this argument isn't that GREAT, but if nothing else it's a great way to make negs take time to read an exclusive definition if they have one. If they don't, they may have to kick T unless they can answer why excluding this specific aff is bad, or why perming T is illegit. Either way, it can be an effective time suck, but some judges are less receptive to it than others.
  11. 1. You would probably be making util/consequentialism good claims on this part of the flow, as well as external "aff impacts come first"-type claims (reasons the judge should view your impacts before that of the K even if the neg wins that util is bad) 2. Threat con good isn't an impact framing arg - it's a response to a kritik of threat construction
  12. The problem with ignoring the link debate (or slacking on it, making it not viable for the 2AR) is that any decent K team can do pretty handy analysis about how this means the perm fails. Like, if they win the aff is steeped in securitization, that means any perm that includes the aff carries securitization, making the perm not solve the impact to the K. Also, if the neg doesn't have an answer to "alt can't overwhelm the squo," they shouldn't be running K's, plain and simple. Plus, there's always the possibility that they kick the alt and go for the K as a case turn, which makes all of your trickery on the alt useless. Every 2AC should include some sort of offense on the link or impact. Yes, the neg will probably make the "this is a new link" arg, but that doesn't matter if you win other claims against the K that mitigate the effect of the link. Like, it doesn't matter if you have 20 links to the K if you win the impact turn. Definitely read framework and impact framing arguments (NOT AS THE SAME ARG, framework at the top, impact framing around the impact part). Those allow you to weigh your aff against the K, which allows you access to the "disads to the alt" TIH? was talking about even if they kick the alt proper.
  13. The common response is that preparation for nuclear war doesn't simply entail a set of physical actions to be taken, but also includes a mental shift in our recognition of our relation to the bomb - that war is inevitable and we simply must be prepared for it instead of fleeing it in an endless set of actions which only delay the inevitable. An aff that says "preventing wars solves the necessity of preparation" is probably just walking into a neg trap that they'll blow up in the block where you now link in a half-dozen new ways. I'm not saying it's not a valid arg - there's definitely lit on this issue - but any good K team will take that arg and run with it.
  14. mdawgig


    This. I don't think there's much of ANY utility in going for multiple positions in the 2NR (that aren't part of the same strategy, like CP+DA). If you only go for one world, you have five minutes to BLOW UP whatever the 1AR said on it (and if you had 5 or so off-case and case in the 1NC, most of which made it through the block, that's not going to be more than a minute). Like, with DA+case, you should start with the DA (always start with an offensive argument in case you don't make it all the way down your flow and you miss some stuff at the end. Much better to miss some defense on case than your impact calc on the DA) and spend about 2:30 there: 1:00 cleaning up the flow like The Incredible Hulk? said and really explaining the link story, and 1:30 answering their args. Then move onto the case and spend a minute ONLY extending the args that are totally relevant to the DA flow (impact defense or turns, or really good internal link takeouts). Then, with the last 1:30 seconds, contextualize the case and DA together and put a bow on the whole strategy with impact calc - make it undeniable that the fact that there's a risk of defense on their impacts means you look at the DA first and foremost. If you really want to give devastating 2NRs, try doing practice speeches where you just go for one strategy OVER AND OVER (like DA + case). Put about 5-6 really good aff args on the flow that the "1AR" made and practice your 2NRs over and over, switching up the DA and "aff" args until you really get a feel for what a good 2NR should feel like, what args it should contain, etc. Have a coach watch you and tune it up a little every time - don't expect your second attempt at a particular DA 2NR is going to be good - look for one small thing to improve on every time you give it (like better link explanation or better line by line) and before you know it your 2NRs are going to be absolutely devastating.
  15. mdawgig

    Straight Turn

    I mean, you should only ride the Straight Turn Express if you know you can go for it. If you have experience going for link turns and you feel confident that you want to go all in on that, you could make a block that's ONLY straight turns. Now, would I recommend that? Probably not. Straight turning leaves you really vulnerable if they have a really good thumper to answer it (like, most teams that go for politics a lot probably have a really good answer to the link turn). When you go all-in on that argument, you're kind of at the whim of the neg block to make or break your ability to use that strategically in the 1AR/2AR. A more diversified 2AC block really gives you a world of options, including - if, and only if necessary - the ability to go for terminal defense in the 2AR. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend making a straight-turn-exclusive 2AC block UNLESS you're extremely confident in your ability to go for it.
  • Create New...