Jump to content

Richard (Not Nixon)

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Okay

About Richard (Not Nixon)

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/08/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    Richard I.
  • School
    Juan Diego Catholic High School
  • Biography
    I'm predominately an LDer and Policy debater, but I've dabbled in PF, and many IEs.
  • Location
  • Interests
  1. Well, it's been a while, but we've certainly continued to improve here in the state of Utah. TOC this weekend- Mario and Andrew made it to Quarters, and two policy teams from Utah made it there total (both Roho) We've still had many othe successes though. Lone Peak had two TOC qualled LDers, and both plan on sticking around to help coach here in the valley. Cade and Max bid at Alta, and Juan Diego (a year after the speculation of our program growth) got its first bid ever in policy. If anyone is curious about Juan Diego's plans for the future: With plans for four of us from Juan Diego to go to Michigan 7 (myself, Katie, Aniela, and Gus) alongside a slew of dedicated novices (the kind who do speed drills in the off season) our program has plans to do nothing but grow next year. Our PF program also expanded, and though we didn't bid this year, our sophomore A team won the Bingham round robin and broke at every national tournament they went to. LD is the only shaky spot on our squad with 2 debaters left, one will be a JVer and the other varsity, as I finally made the decision to switch to policy from LD. We owe our sudden expansion in our policy program to our coaches first and foremost. For those curious, Nick from our squad is going to the U and has plans to stick around in the community. So, we can add one more judge to the list. In all honesty, I think Utah debate is in a position to really expand over the course of the next few years. I think the great thing about our state is that we're competitive enough to have a reputation, but we're small enough that we all know each other, travel together, and support each other. I am concerned for the state of the Lone Peak policy program a few years down the line, though. What with Bentley leaving and the majority of the Policy experience concentrated on the few upperclassmen. I have no doubt that Abby can help maintain the level of success Lone Peak has had in the past in PF, but I don't know how well the policy program will fare. So, I'm curious as to what other people's takes on the state of Utah debate is now, since we seem to have a trend of randomly bumping this thread once a year.
  2. There's a local team here that runs the same plan every year "The USFG should declare full-scale war and launch nuclear warheads on the following countries: *insert list of countries*" I don't remember hearing their justification for running it on this topic, but on Alt Energy they said "nuclear weapons are nuclear, which is an alternative form of energy." Awesome we meet on the T flow. This is one of those policy teams that basically just materializes out of thin air a week before our state tournament, indifferent to winning or losing.
  3. Some team here ran a bunnies of happiness counterplan. They said we should feed all the white poor people black bunnies, and all the black poor people white bunnies... They claimed to solve for hunger, and for racism, because eating a bunny of a differing skin pigment will convince you to abandon racist mindsets...
  4. Well I haven't competed in Policy myself this year, but I've done Policy in the past, and am planning on switching over completely next year after my summer at Michigan. It was Lone Peak (the neg) versus East (aff).
  5. Watched a Policy round at Districts. I came in right after the NC. The strat was T-Pltx-CP-and some other stuff I didn't see covered in the 2AC. The kicker here? About 2 minutes of the 2AC consisted of an RVI on T, and Politics Disads bad theory that the Aff itself linked to. Also, I was watching one of our novice Policy debaters at CFL quals attempting to do LD on the jury null topic. He had six contentions he didn't read in order, they were each a card long. He was extremely unclear. After reading his six cards, he proceeded to go back up to each contention and extemp some analysis on them. (He was aff) So he starts talking about how jury null can prevent oppression. "And jury null can be used to stop oppression! Because the man is trying to get us down! Otherwise the world would be more like George Orwell's 1983- wait, is it '83 or '84?" *he looks at his opponent* She replies during his speech "1984" "Oh, okay. So yeah, it'd be like 1984! That's bad! You don't wanna lose your rights do you?!" Yeah. I was facepalming hard.
  6. - Language is the only concrete standard to measure in round. It shapes and contextualizes any sort of argument a debater may run. - Language precedes any argumentation. By evaluating an argument you are implicitly evaluating the language of it. Absent a conception of language arguments become pointless, as one who doesn't understand cannot evaluate. -Discourse shapes reality. Humans are notorious for their desire to quantify things into opposites. The aff's discourse has an implicit desire to categorize <X impact> as bad, ultimately meaning that a vote for the argument is a vote categorizing <X> as bad, and sending that message says that type of argumentation is effective, ultimately encouraging such positions to be ran. My three cents.
  7. Our team generally makes a habit of writing frontlines together. Card cutting and frontline writing is divided up amongst different debaters, we each take positions we'd feel the most capable of writing frontlines for. We use this same process for block writing in both LD and Policy. Once finished we'll compile our frontlines, get them fine-tuned if need be, and we're good to go. I find this kind of block writing advantageous as it not only increases efficiency tremendously, but allows everyone a shot at block writing. We let our Policy novices write blocks this year, and some of the stuff they turned up (including blocks, overviews, and file updates) were actually really impressive. The interaction they get with our varsity debaters allows for them to learn from their mistakes in block writing (amongst other things) and improve upon it.
  8. He did, I'm pretty sure he's not going because of cost issues, and I think it's a crying shame that's how it played out for him. Both of them are great debaters and deserve their spots at the TOC.
  9. Yeah Lone Peak's LDers are fairly impressive, and very fast. Though yeah, word economy is something many LDers need to improve on in general. There are certain phrases that seem so prevalent in LD such as "insofar as" "I would argue that..." "firstly.... secondly..." that are overused. It may seem pretty insignificant, but seconds add up and it can take a significant toll. It's far more efficient to just number your arguments as "one, two, three" etc.
  10. I think the biggest problem many LDers face when transitioning to Policy revolves around flowing. This problem is magnified in those who aren't used to speed, but it is still prevalent. It is a skill that you can pick up fairly easily, though, so you shouldn't stress over it. Even after competing in both events myself I do have a question: Outside of the final rebuttal speeches, are analytical arguments used that often in Policy? In all of my experience it seems that they aren't, but I haven't seen many top-tier rounds.
  11. My school's coaches have always been great about help, be it with advice, frontline writing, or evidence cutting. I find it nice to know that if I need help with writing a position, or finding a certain card, I've got a few people to turn to for help.
  • Create New...