Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


liampirate last won the day on May 15 2016

liampirate had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

206 Excellent

About liampirate

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/04/1995

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
    Liam Donnelly
  • School
    Univ of Puget Sound, Ingraham HS
  • Biography
  • Location
  • Occupation
  1. liampirate

    What Improvements Could Be Made to Cross-x.com?

    I don't check cross-x that often - although, in the past week, i've had to deal with reports and delete posts quite a bit for obvious reasons. I second everything The X Factor said on this note - the mods are in a bit of a bind here. The forums used to be browsed by a lot of people. Many of the purposes cross-x used to have - tournament invites, getting cites, talking smack privately, coaching position advertising, etc - have been supplanted by facebook, tabroom, and the wikis. Since these things made up much of the reason for the high traffic on cross-x in the early and mid 2ks, there are far fewer people on cross-x. This, consequently, means that there is less ad revenue, it's no longer all that profitable, and so there is less incentive for the owners to care - esp given that the supermod is unpaid and has no incentive to check cross-x. Plus, the rise in trolling gives cross-x a pretty bad name - it kind of becomes a joke at debate camps, and much of the college debate community still jokes about the forum. These things, of course, end up feeding back upon one another: more trolling means less people come to cross-x and that it gets a bad name in the community, which, consequently, means that there are fewer active leaders on cross-x, and so the trolling gets checked on less (and, hence, it becomes pretty easy for a troll's stale misogynistic memes to become the most recent post on the majority of forums). I know of many high school coaches that explicitly ban their students from posting on this board - it's time to make cross-x a more credible place for people to talk about debate. The board needs to be revamped to reflect that many of the regional forums are no longer necessary. Debate help should be expanded, boards to talk about recorded debates need to be expanded (we should have threads that do indebth studies on single debates - imho one of the most useful things one can do to improve on debate is to discuss "what if" questions while watching other debates), and there should be more active forums for specific arguments on each topic. I got a lot out of this forum during my first two or three years of debating - getting posters to give me indebth answers to my questions about debate gave me the stimulation that I needed to become more successful at debate, as someone without a coach my first year of debate. I know a lot of debaters who have had similar experiences with cross-x - some who have gone on to be TOC champions, even - but it doesn't seem like cross-x is getting that level of traffic anymore, due to trolls and an overall decline in the quality of commentary (which, again, feedback on one another). Cross-x should become more of an open-source, communal, online workshop - although, there should be unfixed definitions of teacher/student (I personally made a lot of gains as a debater by helping others, and I think that the older varsity debaters judging VDebates and responding to novice Q threads are probably learning a lot themselves). The "Red Pedagogy AC" thread that's going on right now is an example of what I'd like to see more of - people helping each other make their arguments the best they can be. It's a good thing for people to be exposed to different ideas - this is the case in talking about debate arguments, in analysing debates, or just even in asking simple questions about debate - which is why having more people on the board to talk about this stuff would be productive for both those asking questions and those responding to them. There aren't many "right answers" in debate, and having a board that catalogues how different people think about the same issue should be really helpful for someone in both shaping their own viewpoints, learning how to effectively adapt to judges, and getting into the mindset of thinking through how an argument will be played out when prepping it. This is why I think that cross-x is a great way to expose yourself to viewpoints other than your team's, your region's, or your coach's - and why coaches shouldn't tell their debaters to come on here. If I owned cross-x, I would attempt to reach out to qualified community members and pay them to do AMA-style question answering. This might cost some money, but it would easily be paid for by the ad revenue that camps pay, which would probably increase if we got more traffic. I think that this would be a good way to attempt to bring in more of the community and create a different name for cross-x, which, in turn, would bring in more people to talk about arguments, files, help, etc. Evazon also needs a revamping. Authors need to be paid, but that's the bare minimum revamp that needs to happen. It's time to forego Phil Kerpin's free marketeering idea to force the authors to sell as independent contractors. Evazon should operate like a journal of files - an editorial board should be paid to evaluate whether a file is of a sufficient quality to be sold, and a price should be set by someone other than the author (and then the author can choose to accept or reject the price, still getting 60% of the files bought). That way, we can do away with the sheer number of files that are functionally copy-paste jobs done by 17 year olds. Let's put quality above everything else so that Evazon can get some credibility - I think it'd get more users if that were to happen. FWIW, I don't wish to bemoan the olden days of cross-x (to be clear, I started here around the tail end of the peak of cross-x). There were still trolls, and there was a lot more smack talking and people mocking eachother. I think there are actually more threads where people are being helpful towards novices and people who need help than there were in the past - but a lot fewer people around to provide that commentary.
  2. liampirate

    winter break- state of the china topic

    In my limited experience judging on this topic, this premise does not seem to be the case - people are often winning on T when it's in the 2nr, debaters just aren't going for it as often as they should. QPQ and diplo engagement seem to be not-so-great T arguments (and, as mentioned above, have even become memes) - but most judges seem to agree the topic is large and the way the topic has played out is one that has made judges sympathetic to calls for limitations on the topic. Some speculation on why so few teams go for T in the 2nr: - too many people see T as a "time suck" - and so they invest little, if any, time in the block on it. - so many of the top open teams are juniors and seniors who have exclusively debated on topics where basically everyone read either one of 4 or 5 policy AFFs or something critical - so they have zero experience with topics where T was a necessity for the negative against teams that read plans. - camps made the T debate on this topic seem more intimidating than it had to be. I know that many of you sat through entire lectures on the incredibly dense topics that T on this topic forces you to engage with - and maybe you left the lectures thinking "I am just going to read an aff that avoids this debate and not go for it on the negative - problem solved! back to researching god-awful disadvantages that won't link to most of the affs on this topic!" What constitutes engagement is, in fact, only a question that has to be as deep and complex as you want to make it - if your style of going for T is to go for "predictable limits are good" - you can do a passable job of going for T by winning (a) that your interpretation is predictable - which only requires understanding a subset of the engagement definitional literature and then ( that predictable limits outweigh whatever they're talking about. - like was said above - QPQ is a meme. Diplo engagement is 50-50 in terms of lit support, and doesn't have that great of an internal link into the Spurlock-style "limits outweigh everything" overviews high schoolers love to give. Hence, the poster children of T arguments on this topic aren't very good, but 2n's aren't willing to block out something else. - half the T arguments run on this topic are T-QPQ. AFFs have it blocked out. Again, this is speculation, and I only have limited experience, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt - but, from what I have observed, this seems pretty accurate. My advice: if you have a solid set of generics already put together, spend some time blocking out and practicing T arguments over winter break. It takes roughly 3 hours to become an expert on a single T argument - 2 hours of blocking it out, an hour of practicing going for the argument (granted, if you've never done this before, it will take longer the first few times - and this is only an estimated average). Pick four or five T arguments that encompass the majority of affs at your next tournament, do one a day, and you'll have plenty of time to play video games or watch OA or do whatever you kids do. Given the state of the topic, I think that, in terms of "added wins per hour of work," a time investment into working on T has a larger payoff than most other things an average 2N could be doing this break. (fine print: this is not the case for someone who doesn't already have a substantive negative strategy that they have been at least somewhat successful on - T is not always the best option, showing up to a tournament with only topicality will not produce many wins, but someone who already has a couple of good arguments already in the "tub" will probably benefit by also being able to go for T more than, say, also being able to go for [insert new but probably terrible DA/K here]). And, of course, teams should go for T more often against non-traditional AFFs that don't defend the topic (and go for framework less, and realize how bad most of their links to radical leftist args are, etc) - but i'll save that rant for another post.
  3. 1. from my experience, you're SOL on this one (read: i have tried many times to find a free online version of this book, and it's probs not going to happen). Go to a local library, probably a univ library, or just spring for the ebook. It's not a highly stocked book, nor is it popular enough for it have been converted into an ebook format that is easily reproducible and easy to distribute freely. 2. go to google books, hit "view ebook," and then use the free sample. you get the first three chapters of the book. this gives you three of the six chapters that imo are pertinent towards debate (the other three being 4, 5, 10. 6 and 11 might be relevent depending on what you want to do with the K). This can at least reduce the ammt of time you have to spend in the library or with a physical copy, if you don't want to spring for the ebbok. 3. for the love of god, move beyond this godforsaken book. the book makes an argument that is only utilized in a generic sense in debate. most of the content of the book discusses contexts of things you will rarely debate. the book itself is generalized and more generic, while there are plenty of high quality journal articles that make similar arguments to the book (personal responsibility is sacrificed in talking about political responsibility) in a far more persuasive and specific way. look in criminological journals, and look for journal articles that bridge criminology lit w/ IR lit.
  4. liampirate

    Judging/Coaching For Hire

    Hi PNW debate comrades: i'm currently taking a year (+) off from college, and while I have a part-time job, I am interested in asst coaching positions, if they exist. I'm located in north seattle, but am able to travel for weekday coaching and tournaments, and will generally work for marginally more than dirt. My bio from about 3 years ago is four posts up - since then i have done 2 years of college policy debate and half a year of parli debate (don't hold it against me). I broke at a handful of college policy tournaments, including one tournament win, got a couple speaker awards, and had a break round at ceda. Semi-fluent in LD and PF stuff, too. Judged about 40 CX rounds + 10 LD or PF rounds each of the past three years. I have debated, prep'd, and coached just about every genre of argument - my last 1.5 years of debate were spent going for critical arguments and reading critical affirmatives, but I am also an economics major that does public policy work. Email me: liampirate at gmail dot com.
  5. liampirate

    Legendary Evidence

    every year, Petro 74
  6. liampirate

    Going for a CP with a DA net-benefit in the 2NR

    IMO - the #1 reason why people fuck up DA/CP 2nrs is a failure to properly diagnose what you're ahead and behind on. To win these debates, you need to win that the disadvantage is larger than whatever reason the CP doesn't solve the affirmative, whatever parts of the affirmative it doesn't solve, and any disadvantages to the CP (assuming theory, competition-based perms, etc are out of the way). In the specific context above: I get this strategy. Think of it this way: the difference between the plan and the CP is that the plan does space co-op, the CP doesn't do space (it does something else). The net-benefit to the CP, then, ought to be something about why space-based co-operation with china is a bad thing - it could, for example, be a "space development bad" DA (launches bad, ozone destruction, etc - you might have some UQ problems though). To win the debate, then, you have to win that what the CP changes should be changed - that the net benefit (the reason why the part of the CP you change ought to be changed) outweighs any reason why that change means the CP doesn't solve, or has other net-effects (DA's to CPs are rare these days, but in this instance the 2ac could potentially say something like "the sort of non-space coop the CP does is bad/causes other problems"). Another way to think about this (and other CP strategies) - it neutralizes a part of the plan. Consider this - for the affirmative listed above, I suspect that there would be two lines of affirmative offense: "space good" and "coop with china good." These might be different internal links to the same advantage (eg, "coop with china helps US international credibility" and "space development helps US cred" could be internal links to the same advantage) or just be advantages that are exclusively one of these lines (eg, a space col advantage is pretty clearly in the former category, an advantage about preventing wars with china over other stuff is pretty clearly in the latter). Your CP still coops with China - you (probably) solve the internal links and advantages based around coop being good. You (probably) don't solve advantages and internals saying that going into space is good. This is where people mess these 2nrs up - often spending time in places they need not spend time in, and not spending enough time in more important parts of the debate. Let's say that you are giving a 2nr on this CP + a "new launches bad for environment" sort of DA against an aff that does space coop claiming two advantages: space colonization from going to space and US-China relations. - you don't (usually) need to spend time extending case defense on the US-China relations advantage. If you have strong ev that whatever the CP does will improve coop, you will likely win that you cooperate in a way that would prevent a conflict. Too many 2nrs waste time here. In this part of the solvency debate, you might need some framing - for example, the Aff might say something like "our advantage indicates that the US will always have some animosity towards China's space program sans coop" - you need to make arguments about how, just because the US might have some animosity such animosity will not arise to the level of conflict-trigger b/c you move the conflict from being at the brink, as many advantages might say the conflict is at. In other words, you need to frame the question of this part of the debate: it's not a question of whether the US and China have bad relations post-CP but rather whether they go to war. - you do (usually) need to have a solid response to ILs that stem from going to space. This can come in the form of case defense against such internal links, or in the form of CP solvency arguments that say either that (a) the thing the CP does still solves the impact of the advantage (maybe some of their extinction scenarios for the impact to the space colonization advantage would be lessened w/ certain forms of coop with china - this might give them an advantage if you kick the CP - in this specific instance the structure of many space col advantages makes this very difficult to win), which requires winning that this CP solvency overcomes the issues of the status quo, or ( that you solve the advantage in other ways. - you do need to do impact calc - but you need to remember that you're not comparing the DA to the entirety of the case. You're comparing the DA to the solvency deficits they're winning - in this case, you'll probably win that you solve the china conflict advantage and not the space colonization advantage. In this case, this probably means making general "turns the case arguments" - "collapse of the environment b/c of launches means that we'd never be able to colonize space b/c it'd interfere w/ routing technology needed to get us to another planet." Their advantage in this instance is well set-up to deal with extinction scenarios (eg, they'll say that they get the some of populaiton off the rock, so extinction doesn't happen) so this turns the case argument requires winning some time frame distinction (ie "the environment interferes with technology required to get us to another planet before we'd ever have the tech to get off the rock). You DON'T usually need to do this for the china conflict advantage - too many 2nrs waste time here. Remember, you have to win that the thing the CP does differently from the plan ought to be different - don't lose sight of that question.
  7. liampirate

    Bid Levels for next year?

    the UW tournament was also held the same weekend as Cal and Harvard, which, to the best of my knowledge, will not be the case next year. The region around the UW last year had a few toc-qualifying teams, and several more elim-quality teams. A more plausible explanation imho is that the toc committee realizes that the lack of a bid tournament in western washington region is problematic, given the already-developing region; the toc committee seems to "match" regional development more than it attempts to "create" it.
  8. liampirate

    Bid Levels for next year?

    The TOC committee is very un-transparent - so it's hard to determine why they do anything. Presumptively, though, they look at attendance of a tournament in terms of quantity (how many teams), quality (how many teams showed up that also got bids elsewhere), and diversity (how many regions and circuits were represented), and also look at tournaments in a regional context (does a region have an increasing debate presence? did a different tournament in a region recently end, leaving a region with a strong debate circuit with proportionately fewer bids?). From my knowledge of all of the aforementioned tournaments, these measures explain the changes in bid levels and allocations, but, again, it's really hard to tell - and there are, admittedly, factors that are un-objective, maybe even "corrupt" that may go into these decisions, too (but i'll save the TOC committee conspiracy theories - some almost definitely true, others more speculative - for later).
  9. liampirate

    sdi 4 week vs gonzaga 5 week soph?

    i went to SDI as a soph and then GDI scholars as a junior (not the same thing, sure, but the point is that I have some experience w/ both camps). At both camps you will learn a whole lot - but I think Gonzaga probably has a better faculty for your argumentative interests. SDI isn't a great place if you want to do the K - tho they do have some K faculty, the overwhelming majority of their faculty has little to no experience coaching the K (and the ones that do are almost exclusively K coaches). GDI is a good spot if you want to be flex - though it's lab leaders are still more oriented towards policy arguments and the general ideological stance will be a bit further towards the right than the median viewpoint in the activity (esp coming from a circuit like that of illinois). Basically every other factor is about equal - both spokane and east lansing are fun places to spend some time but, ultimately, get pretty fucking boring (they each have maybe one good attraction that you will see, and the rest of each city will be mostly restaurants). As for $, SDI isn't likely to be less than gonzaga. Gonzaga is generally one of the cheaper camps in the country, and they seem to give out more aid than many others. You might also want to check out the greyhound potential for going to Spokane - it might save you some money and there are usually some student discounts.
  10. liampirate

    Washington State

    lol - name a single seattle prep school w/ a policy team
  11. liampirate

    Best Policy Team in Oregon 2015

    this thread is the worst. yes, it's good to see that oregon debate exists, but 2/3 of this thread is just drama for the sake of drama. some thoughts (mostly responding to Zacpdx's post): 1. saying your own circuit sucks is a self-fulfilling prophesy. you all underestimate the change you can make--through argumentative choice, through talking to judges and explaining things to them, through teaching novices, and through engaging in dialogue outside of tournaments about arguments you enjoy and wish to read with your debate friends on the circuit--to your own circuit. There are, realistically, less than 25 varsity policy teams in the state of oregon, so all of the aforementioned methods seem pretty simple and like they would spread widely. 2. lay judges just require you to communicate. every judge, in reality, requires you to communicate with them, but perhaps a college debater judging your round allows you to explain things in a vernacular they're familiar with, whereas describing things to a lay judge requires a bit more translating into terms they get. But if you can explain stuff, you will still be able to read virtually any argument. also, as more people read an argument on a circuit, it becomes incorporated into the general knowledge of a lay critic. 3. it's cool that you and other oregon people are going to camp, but the second that you start waving it around as your qualification for knowing more about what is "good debate" because you worked with "well respected college debaters" is the moment that you loose all credibility as a member of the debate community (and start looking like an asshole tbh) because you start to hold your normative accomplishments (not really even accomplishments, you just showed up somewhere) as currency over what other people have accomplished in the community. 4. a circuit can't be "far behind," it can only be different from others. if you want it to be different, change it.
  12. liampirate

    Debate Team

    http://www.baylor.edu/communication/index.php?id=68300 or he could, you know, just be working at a university, and we could not jump to the conclusion that every person over 70 is not working and is living in a senior living community
  13. liampirate

    The NDT 2015

    all debate is performance, don't ever let someone tell you otherwise how is Kansas HR any more of a performance team than, say, NU MV? are you sure you're not just conflating identity arguments with performance? because doing so is fairly problematic for obvious reasons
  14. liampirate

    Gonzaga University HS Debate Tournament?

    - 5 rounds in one day sucks, as does 3 and 4 being paired together which screws over some people. it's still 6 rounds tho, more than some. - judging is pretty average for a sems bid imho. fill out prefs carefully, you'll be fine. I've never heard of a team that was in contention to break not get a 1 or 2. there is a disproportionate number of spokane-area judges, many of whom don't have a ton of experience, but that's typical at most regional bid tournaments. a lot of large cali, utah, and washington schools come with pretty good judges, plus gonzaga debaters are in the pool. - there seems to be a stronger divide competitively than a lot of other finals or sems bid tournaments: there are usually a large group of teams that are in contention to get a bid and the difference between that group of maybe 10 or 15 teams and the rest of the pool is pretty large. in other words, the skill difference between the average 3-3 and the average 4-2 is a lot larger than that of at other tournaments - fwiw, every year there is an exception or two to the above rule, so take it generally. teams that could have probably gotten a bid go 3-3 every year because of rnds 3-4 being paired together, and a few teams I wouldn't have expected to break do break, too. - it's a pretty swift tournament in general, doesn't require a ton of resources since the spokane airport seems to be fairly cheap to fly into, and is towards the end of many team's vacations which makes it easy to prep for the whole break and then show up, and means you may miss less school
  15. liampirate

    Idaho debate

    > Gets excited b/c there's a thread happening on this forum > sees that it's about idaho > realizes it's people complaining about idaho debate > significantly less excited > feels like there's atleast one thread on this subject every year > not excited at all now > wonders why receives an email after every new post in this forum > remembers that i'm the mod of this forum > back to bed