Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Firewater

  1. Had a long, thought out response but the more i think of it, most of the points i would make, others did. Georgetown messed up slightly in their responses to Rutgers' arguments, the form was absolutely questionable and strategic at the same time and if the video wasn't removed (doesn't matter by who) the risk or negative repercussions would only have been felt towards Rutgers, and other teams who did either critical debate or are mostly black/brown people. This definitely will change college policy debate, the question is if it causes some shift to the middle/some concessions from either/both sides. Or does it mirror the United States' political actions and lead to an even worse polarization/division between critical and policy debate?
  2. Had a long, thought out response but the more i think of it, most of the points i would make, others did. Georgetown messed up slightly in their responses to Rutgers' arguments, the form was absolutely questionable and strategic at the same time and if the video wasn't removed (doesn't matter by who) the risk or negative repercussions would only have been felt towards Rutgers, and other teams who did either critical debate or are mostly black/brown people. This definitely will change college policy debate, the question is if it causes some shift to the middle/some concessions from either/both sides. Or does it mirror the United States' political actions and lead to an even worse polarization/division between critical and policy debate?
  3. Framework Some K (Cap, Anthro, Tuck and Yang, an idenity based critique if you and your partner can access it, etc.) - Pick one of these options a generic CP + Elections/Topic DA strat for K teams that defend the aff. Case - if you can find it/things you can predict or expect.
  4. Cap's sufficient, or Anthro, or even various identity args that you can access. Against cap bad affs, just say cap good- most positive engagement you can have without being forced to defend something morally problematic.
  5. Regardless, for any K you need to know what you are talking about first. As for the 2nc, always assume your judge knows nothing about your argument, even if they know more than you, and generally unless you are in an area that is far more critical/more college judges you should assume this. But for the 2NC 1. have a short (30-45 second overview), that explains your link/impact/alt without using jargon, in your own language - Rationale, even if K judge, they may or may not have ever heard of your arg before, meaning you should explain it well, also helps with mitigating later 1AR/2AR spin if your alternative/link story and impact are all clear. Overview should be short, because most judges only get cranky about giant overview with the line by line getting ignored. Also because in no way can you assume you will be able to adequately cross apply a massive overview in a way that won't waste your time. 2. Line by Line - this should be the rest of the 2NC, you answer as much/the entire 2AC in order. In a world where you're 1 offing the K, sometimes if you shove framework/theory/perms to your partner you tell the judge, and don't answer them, but the rest of the K. -The time you would have wasted in your 5 minute overview, you use to explain your argument in depth on each 2AC response. This is where your prep after pulling cards should be used to find quotes that the aff said/their evidence that either disproves them or proves you have a link/alt solvency. In a world where the K is part of a larger strategy, answer things in order, however it is fine to move Framework and theory to the top, so you can get those out of the way first. TL;DR - short overview in general understandable terms, with no jargon, then the line by line, where you answer the 2AC in 2AC order, unless you and your partner split the 2AC, in which case, you tell the judge what parts would be in the 1NR. You should move nothing other than Framework/Theory from where it was in the flow. One addendum i'd add- it is fine to add a card to the overview, if you read it most debates anyway (if it can't be fit into the 1NC) but a long overview with multiple cards is bad.
  6. maybe, at the same time the main point from snarf still stands. As terrible as link of Omission arguments are, making the attempt/specific claims is a big difference in terms of perceptions of the argument, specificity, etc. that kinda matters in a K debate. That being said don't read Links of Omission.
  7. or maybe don't, try and win with regular args so you don't waste your team's time, money and resources in bringing you to a tournament? And/or not have judges dislike you forever?
  8. T Generic Topic DA Politics Generic Topic CP Generic K some sort of case debate, generic survellance good/impact turns, etc. If you say K things, who cares, you'll find a link. Also as silly as it sounds, judges often give negs more leeway in theoretically questionable things (number of advocacies/types of CP's etc.) because of a new aff so you can take advantage of that as well.
  9. People for the most part are being trolls- but overall there are 2 areas that actually make sense if this is a strategy for a variety of judges/certain styles, if you know the judging you'll get and that they'd be interested in the baudrillardesque bullshit, or Mao, or whatever shit people have mentioned then read it. if you want to read afro-pessimism and have the qualifications to do so, then do it. Safest, most generic strategy is prob. T/Framework, Cap, and maybe a topic DA depending on how much of the topic they'll defend. If they defend none of it, then the DA is pointless/don't read. If they defend the direction of the res is a good idea (so reducing surveillance good) then still have a small link, and if you want to make it more than a ground standard it exists, but it does depend on what they want do defend. If you have the means to, a case specific K is always gonna be better than cap at any rate. That being said, the biggest part of this would be case, which the best way to make sure that your generic queer theory neg actually applies is to read their authors to find out who they are using, if there's any tension, etc. Once you read it you might have the case neg/idea to throw out there. But just remember the less they defend the resolution the more your 2NR should be T/Framework. Doesn't mean you don't go for T if they defend the topic w/o a plan text/advocacy statement, but it should be an option. TL;DR - Generic is always ok, specific is better, don't read high theory weird shit unless you and the judge actually know what you're talking about, have a good case debate and just go for T or a specific K/Case turn.
  10. if you wrote your aff right, you get to laugh every time you hear a K because your link turns 99% of the time will be more specific than the neg's link. and you get the 2AR to wax poetically of how the aff is the alt/link/the K. But seriously you go for the perm + the link turn and winwhy the aff comes first, your impact outweighs the k and why the alt doesn't solve the aff.
  11. From a judging perspective. Honestly, K affs are getting too good these days, especially idenity based ones. Case cards are better to find than link cards because the aff is trying to defend as little as possible. The aff is going to lie in CX. If you're neg accept it and move on, most affs won't defend against a topic DA. The aff is going to become the perm/no link/your alt. The neg ground either will not exist or is terrible in quality in comparison to the aff, and 9/10 times your stuff won't be "specific" enough for the aff. That being said, the aff usually doesn't explain their aff in a way that people who didn't read their lit/heard their aff before would understand. they will undercover case args, they will lie/try to spin out of case turns/your offense. Their framework offense will be the same 3-4 cards, A single card from their main author that is different, and the generic take your pick terminal impact of (silencing/exclusion/violence/bad education - pick 1 or more) that if you read framework you can have blocked out and since the link is never fully explained you just have to beat back their analysis and the aff. Just win T version of the aff, go for limits/fairness/whatever impact the 1AR may or may not drop/is most true and just do that in the 2NR Point is, K affs are strategically based on making reading critiques, DA's or counterplans pointless. DA's/CP's will never link even if the aff tries to play along, if you give them an inch your DA will go away. and unless you are literally cutting a countermethod from a book that says their aff's thesis/their author is a piece of shit they will be the perm. Unless they read the lit and/or are really into that kind of arg, most judges will only get more annoyed at the neg than the aff if the response is some shit like D&G, Baudrillard, Buddhism, etc. If you gotta read a K, keep it simple and or specific. Most judges are gonna be middle of the road so the super out-there stuff may not be the best choice unless you've had the judge and know they'd be ok with it. Also conditionality isn't a thing if the 1NC was a K and T/Framework. The neg should go for presumption/case args because the aff will mess them up. The neg should not let the aff get a permutation on the coutnermethod/critique. The perm on framework makes no sense Answering "T version of the aff" with "there is no T version of the aff" is literally the silliest, most ridiculous answer to that argument that could exist and if the aff makes it the neg should win the debate (overall debate dependent) The neg should go for limits/ground/fairness arguments- the aff's offense can literally be thrown into 2 sentences with some sort of case specific spin. Also the neg is just functionally true on whether or not -let's be honest. either the lit from the aff is so old that no one writes about it because no one in academia thinks about it, or it's so new/recent that no one has had the time/gotten their critizisms of that theory published yet. And not even going to get into why reading critical affs like this is absolutely terrible for novice debate. Portable skill based arguments are not really good versus K teams. People should also not reccommend people read idenity arguments versus other idenity teams unless you can identify with whatever your countermethod is. Aka. you shouldn't read antiblackness if you aren't a POC versus a different idenity team. Tl;DR- K teams are outsmarting policy teams and doing what they can't- reading authors/arguments where the neg ground doens't exist because no one who's written qualified neg work has been published yet and or no one cares about the aff's lit in academia/it's too old. Reading framework/T is not violent unless the neg makes it so. K's are useless because the specific lit doesn't exist and aff teams lie (doesn't apply to only K teams obviously).
  12. depends? Cap links to narratives depending on the narrative in question/its deployment can or could not be good. At the same time reading a K versus a critical aff without a 100% golden ticket equivalent of a link isn't a good idea. Honestly having a case debate that indites/says narratives are bad + answers to other parts of the aff + Framework/T should be sufficient and it's easily preparable for any aff because 90% of K impact turns to framework are literally the same other than the link/fancy words the 2A will use.
  13. this honestly is the only way you'll be successful new partner or not
  14. this is nonsensical. Whether debate's a "game" or not- you can definitely make critical arguments and topicality args. Also the idea of not switching sides/being unable to is something that hurts debate. If you think it affects "authenticity" or your future arguments, then that's a problem. This only makes sense if you read a method/critique that would blatantly impact turn/contradict framework itself. As for OP's question- Framework is enough, and honestly K teams are getting so good at writing affs that link to nothing/are the perm, you may as well go for T. Some sort of case defense or turns always helps because it helps you mitigate the aff's offense against framework/T args. If they are actually willing to defend "topical" action, take them up on it and read a DA or something. If they have that debate, then just have a DA/Util/Case debate, if they are shifty/lie/don't' defend anything that gets you a surveillance DA link, go for T. If you want a K, honestly just read Cap. Everything else, unless you have super-specific links isn't more beneficial. And even then T is still the best option, because of the whole the aff will be the perm and/or won't link to your K, unless it's super specific. thing
  15. thank god. This has improved quality of life for judges and debaters who do real work everywhere.
  16. Debating in college is fun, and definitely worth the effort. There are people of all skills and experience, and depending on which school or area you debate in, there's a good amount of tournament travel. School is still a priority regardless of program, but it's usually easy to balance school and debate tournaments to an effective level. I have known people who managed to balance a bio/med school schedule with debate relatively well so it is possible. As for the schools I named, both are in D8- which for college is the northeast (New York, New Jersey, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, etc.), Cornell's one of the more policy schools in D8 but they also do their share of K debate, but are mostly policy, have all levels of debate, decently successful regionally and they do travel a little bit nationally. Dartmouth does more national travel, but their team is smaller and they go to fewer tournaments than Cornell, mostly varsity debate, mostly policy but some K stuff exists, is small. D8 as a whole is generally friendly, very novice/JV supporting, and very K, though a lot of schools from the south (GMU, JMU, Liberty, Vanderbilt, etc.) will travel there for tournaments kinda frequently.
  17. may I ask why? I get it's boring,but it would seem that you would have the advantage if you were negative in that situation. Also a good case debate would help, or some other generic k tbh, over race arguments
  18. For the OP's question- T/Framework is your best bet, especially if they are not in the resolution at all. This doesn't preclude reading criticues or case arguments- because those are often strong options. Plenty of teams read topical affs on the college resolution, both policy and critical, you may only see that info from the college wiki because the policy neg ground is utter trash for this resolution. GMU's still mostly policy. We have a good number of K teams, but in all levels of debate we still have more policy teams than "k/critical teams".And all of the debaters who are doing critical stuff now did do policy at some point (and our top team is very policy leaning). Madison seems pretty topic relevant/policy esque too. Pitt and GW may read more critical arguments but they still are mostly policy, GW's known for reading affs that don't claim big impacts, that are topical and defend implementation...but are questionably topical even if they read a lot of Ks on the neg, Pitt is very critical, but they are more policyish this year than they've been known to be in the past. most D7 squads are majority or all policy other than West Virginia,Towson and Rutgers (and sometimes Pitt) though. Though in other districts, (Like D8) these numbers are reversed. It just depends on where you debate and other factors. Like for examples, areas with large amounts of novice/JV debate (D7/D8) in college are often more policy leaning, at least at the novice level.
  19. This doesn't preclude framework or T at all though. At the same time, Framework/T is actually a good strategy to read for a few reasons. First is that it gives the neg some offense, in terms of debating on why the topic is good, or if they are 'topiical" why a topical version of the aff solves better than the aff itself. Second, yes, framework is very predictable, yes, they will have a lot of time spent on it. Honestly this argument is the worst argument that people make as to why Framework is a bad option to read against critical affs, for the same reason why people would say to not read a Politics DA because they have answers and it's the only applicable DA to a policy aff. Yes they'll be prepped on it but it's the neg's best ground. But there's 2 reasons why you'd read the argument. First is either a time difference- if you read a counter advocacy and T, if they spend 5:30 or more on T, and only 2:30 on case and your countermethod, go for the case + countermethod, or spend the block on T, it's honestly a good tradeoff for the neg either way because most 2AC's to Framework/T are the exact same, bar the nuances that a specific aff may or may not have. Second, especially since the OP appears to be a younger debater, judges are more likely to be more sympathetic to framework/T arguments in lower levels just because most people are still figuring out how debate functions and how to debate policy strats, or even their affs adequately, where critical affs in lower levels often causes a ton of confusion for both sides. Third, as stated above- you can impact turn/countermethod/read a K along with Framework/T. The performative contradiction argument that teams may make is only a solvency takeout (and a not strong one), or conditionality, which the impact to is usually education and can be mitigated by your framework answers (and that T/Framework + a K is not 2 worlds), which is also beatable. Finally, judge adaptation is good- doesn't matter if you're in college or high school, you should have just as good of a framework/T file as you have a critique or specific countermethod to have against a team, and be able to go for both.
  20. Not Heidegger- K affs in novice, especially ones that aren't planning to be topical are bad for a multitude of reasons. But you should aim to the simplest aff area (in terms of explanation) that has a lot of predictable neg ground, to help them prepare for their aff rounds.
  21. defend your method/advantages. I mean, depending on the judge it may be more strategic to keep reading your regular advantages, and just have evidence/the arguments to say why your impacts aren't just creating threats, but reasons why they are specifically bad. You also could just roll with securitization good because of x/y/z reasons. Also if you're looking for justifications for your own advantages that's a good start- but check out the college wiki if you aren't able to find them- but that's usually the best spot and is better that trying to change your aff for that one critique. Especially if you know that that will be the 2NR choice, it's a lot better to change your aff slightly by adding a defense of your advantages/method, than read something new that could lead to a different, unpredicatble critique. but when in doubt, just say Securitization's good. Those cards exist and it's debatable, but you do want to find the cards that have the defense of your stuff in the 2AC/entire debate.
  22. Not being familiar with this topic or the aff in question, is this aff in the direction of the topic, or is it completely anti-topical and says that the topic is bad? That honestly makes the T/Framework distinction a bit more important, as well as dealing with the exclusion question, or even if Framework or T is the better option. If they are in the direction of the topic, T is the better option, simply because it's more likely that you can find a T version of the aff argument, or better specific defenses of the state, or other offense based on the topic itself. At the same time, it's still an attempt to get some sort of offense especially if you can get them to defend parts of the topic. It also would help mitigate their impact turns to framework at the same time. At the same time, if they are anti-resolutional, framework seems like the best option- not to say that it's the only option, but I never did understand how they didn't make their impact turns inevitable because of the fact that we have a topic that the community voted on, and furthermore I think it would hurt the teams reading this type of argument if they attmept to be anti-topical because it could be more difficult to persuade judges, if only superficially due to the fact that most judges don't care about your style as long as you are part of the resolution. Regardless- if they defend the topic, then the FW/T discussion is slightly moot because they are the same thing, and honestly because judges love perms in these debates, the neg's better off going for topicality debates, rather than an advocacy. Secondly, the distinction is ridiculous in that case, and T's better because there will be a specific distinction that at least on paper isn't as exclusionary to the aff. If the aff doesn't defend the topic however, framework's the better option simply because that's an even better link with at least better defenses to the aff's inevitable impact turns- T isn't a good argument in this situation. I'm not touching the D&G or any case debate part of this because I don't know anything about it- but the options listed above are also viable, but depend on what the aff is willing to defend.
  23. It creates good research skills and speaking and large amount of educational opportunities. College scholarships- depending on what your school is like/the people who are involved, that's a huge selling point- point out that unlike pretty much every other style of debate, Policy alone, if you stick with it can ensure you get full rides or at least partial scholarships to colleges to solely debate (though you can obviously get scholarships in other ways). Also includes a ton of travel to places around the US you may have never seen before. Also looks really good on applications whether or not you plan to continue in college.
  24. Firewater

    Best ROBs

    the ROB is for the judge to vote for the team that did the better debating.
  25. The biggest issue is that it will be incredibly difficult to balance both baseball and collegiate debate. Second, Bard had a policy team as recently as last season, not sure if they are still functioning as a program, though when they did they were a very critical team in terms of argument.
  • Create New...