Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by OGRawrcat

  1. You should look for interps that describe specific actions that are minimally required to be substantial in context of topic specific phrases. This can be numerical, but cards that describe specific portions of FMS or DCS(?) as significant, such as particular weapons systems, countries, international agreements, etc etc etc. This establishes a clearer baseline for a) what the best neg ground looks like/gives a clearer story for WHY your minimal action is necessary for core topic discussions and core ground, b) makes it easier to sidestep the overlimits debate by saying "we could do the aff so long as this action is also done" (which makes your TVA debate simple as well). You should otherwise set up your limits DA with cards that outline the number of countries we deal with, number of agreements we have with individual countries (giving one country as an example is fine, the point is showing that we have a variety of overlapping arms deals with each country), and number of items considered arms for arms sales. I want to specify that the best/most contextual "substantially" cards are actually specific topic phrase interps like "x agreement is the core of foreign military sales, necessary for a substantial reduction."
  2. 2 things: 1- You shouldn't strive to design T arguments on the negative to be accommodating to the aff. Your framing argument for T on the neg is competing interpretations. By definition your goal is to provide the most limited interpretation of a word or phrase in the resolution to provide the best predictable limits for a topic. An important thing to remember is that while yes, the aff will have some kind of aff education good argument, your impact on the negative is fairness. So even if the aff wins some risk of offense from an education-based standard, you can win that debate with impact framing/comparison between fairness and education. 2- substantially violations aren't usually persuasive unless you have topic-specific interp/violation cards. Otherwise the aff saying "this is arbitrary, here's a card saying substantially means x%" is pretty easy to listen to. So this will either be a matter of research for you or a waiting game to see what debate camps put out (though typically words that aren't topic specific just get copy/pasted backfile cards from college debaters/coaches doing camp assignments).
  3. Quick distinction in mod v admin powers. Mods can only manage content on the front end of the website (within whatever allowed permissions). Stuff like forum creation is all admin control panel stuff. David can't hand out those powers without also enabling a user to be able to basically control the entire site. That said, topic came out around the new year and he's been active since. For the sake of this topic's request, @David should be tagged.
  4. OGRawrcat

    I'm sorry.

    I like how the topic title says that you're sorry and the topic content is finger wagging. I say this as someone who didn't participate in that thread at all.
  5. If your parents are still a hard no, ask your coach if it would be acceptable if you got direct instruction from someone with college coaching experience throughout the summer. I'd be happy to help and try to rally a couple of people to pitch in. While a) it would be virtual, b) you wouldn't really be able to do practice debates (unless we could specially arrange something), and c) not be constantly engaged (I work and have kids, so definitely some lag in response/aid outside of video chat practice speeches), it's worth noting that almost no one at the collegiate level does camp and somehow many manage to have big gains in skill over the summer doing functionally what I'm offering (meaning cutting cards with oversight+direction, doing practice speeches/drills, watching debates/lectures online and discussing them with someone, and talking/thinking about debate generally.). Sidenote: kind of crappy and elitist that you HAVE to spend a big chunk of money over the summer in order to travel. That's pretty unfair and why I'm offering. Sidenote #2: I'm not asking for money, seems like a just cause. Also why I can't offer to be fully engaged. Sidenote #3: This past season was my third season coaching college. Not way out of the activity or anything.
  6. Typically domain registrars give grace periods reserving the domain for a handful of months to whomever purchased the domain if a payment isn't made. Though service would be down during that period. Also, decent chance that any kind of IP civil suit would go David's way. Domain squatting has been legally dealt with a good while ago and while I don't think that the name cross-x is trademarked or anything, there's definitely some basic legal protection given that the site has been firmly established for 2 decades. Basically, this is not a very pragmatic idea that could stand to turn out bad for whomever tries it. Looked into this. Didn't come to an agreement at this point. Though I won't go into more detail because I and the others who were talking with him agreed not to (a stipulation we offered).
  7. Mostly strategic purposes. More often than not, a critical plan aff is intended to be in the direction of progressive critical literature with its big distinction being a state based mechanism, so perm solvency arguments are intuitive. Moreover, some offense like impact turns that open up different strategic avenues may have too much tension with the aff (like if they read a cap k and you make some root cause arguments for cap in your 1ac). Beyond that, most strategies outside of the perm involve heavier clash on the impact framing debate. For instance if you impact turn or go for case outweighs, it's easier to delineate clash when you're comparing big stick util impacts to structural impacts. A notable exception is pessimism K's. Just got for the impact turn for state action good, progress possible/optimism good, and alt offense. An important distinction I should say is that the perm doesnt have to be the a strat, going for offense to the alt is just as viable, BUT that jives well with a perm debate anyway, the perm also giving you wiggle room to mitigate neg links/impacts.
  8. A policy aff with a critical advantage almost always is locked into the perm. What you should keep in mind are the parts you need to win for the perm: 1- extend the exact perm you want and explain how it works 2- perm solves. The perm solving needs to explain why it resolves the various links to the k, not necessarily do exactly what the alt is. If there are some links you can never solve (like a state action bad link), flag that you're impact turning them and flag that impact turn as a net benefit 3- net benefits to the perm- offensive reasons why the perm should be preferred over the k alt. So with this in mind, consider the generic arguments that you can make to support your aff against the k. A generic frontline would look like: - plan action does something critical to challenge power generally OR what your plan resolves spills over into challenging general social problems, should have a built in state action key warrant - perm solvency - should be built into your 1ac advantage internal links - articulate why the k alt cant solve it - also makes your advantage a net benefit to the perm - state action key to solve - generic - state action good turn - can be something like "cede the political" - generic alt offense - this takes reading into how their alt works. If at the basic level they make ontology arguments, say ontological focus bad. If they say they're a movement, movements bad. Etc etc. All alt offense can be framed as net benefits to the perm AND has the dual effect of tanking alt solvency. Taking out alt solvency means even if they win a link to the perm, they cant uniquely leverage that as offense because THEY don't solve the link. - generic alt solvency answers - prioritize alt offense because it can also take out alt solvency as well, thus is more multipurpose. Other notes: - making "no k's allowed" framework args are hokey and not persuasive unless you have a traditionally minded judge. Making "we should get to weigh the aff" framework arguments are still kind of pointless. When teams make the argument that we shouldn't evaluate if the plan happens, they're making an argument about the education or framing of the aff being bad. So the right answer is to have "our epistemology good" arguments like "scenario planning good" or even use of the state is good sort of works here. This is much more directly engaging and persuasive than a theory argument. - always look for how a new k ties into other critiques. Chances are they are not totally new and are tied into some vein of thought debate has already done to death. Cross x is a good place to parse out links to find a path back to pulling answers from your a2 cap k, a2 whiteness k, etc files. - lastly, explanation trumps cards. Detailing how the perm works and how it can resolve links to the k requires detail and thought, not evidence from authors. Btw, answering specific links with the perm should be in the 1ar, not the 2ac. It's a little pointless in the 2ac when the block will make new link args.
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/#2 More on point explanation of Symbolic Exchange and Death. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a solid go to.
  10. The 1nc is structured like a t violation: - interp - violation - standards - voters The interp should be "the aff should specify x" Usually the violation can be assumed but you can say it if you want to make if clear that you do not, in fact, think they specified. The standards are almost always going to be geared toward ground arguments, so something like neg ground loss, aff conditionality, etc. Always flag what arguments that they make problematic, what DAs you cant get, what CPs. Remember, you don't have to zero in on in round abuse, procedurals are establishing the best standard for what affs should do on this topic or generally, so justifying those arguments is bad enough. You can make other standards but a) you're less likely to win them (like limits is kind of more of an aff arg since specifying increases the number of aff cases), b) other standards args you make would really just be used to hedge against aff answers, so you can save time in your 1nc and just make those arguments in 2nc/1nr blocks. An exception to that is when you're reading a specification arg that is topic specific (like exact increase on visas), in which case you should make a topic education arg. This is really the only place you should need to use a card in a spec debate and evidence you read should be like "specification on x thing is important to the immigration discussion." For voters, fairness is the impact to ground. Topic education is a voter in and of itself. This is kind of rambling, I hammered it out on my phone.
  11. The first use/strike distinction is interesting but you would really really need a depth of evidence to back up that there is a large policy distinction. Most, if not all, aff solvency/internal link evidence on NFU will conflate the 2 terms, making aff answers fairly straightforward that there isn't much of distinction in how these terms are applied based on context in evidence. Another thing to consider is how this implicates aff advantages. NFU affs in broad strokes have both the straight up trump launches nukes advantages as well as perception/cred/miscalc advantages. So I can see this argument being an internal link take out to the former, but misses taking out how other international actors perceive US NFU policy, which you need specific evidence for. I think the best way to deploy this specific argument is as a supplement to circumvention arguments. So if you have arguments that trump will try to launch anyway and/or that he'll look for loopholes, you establish motive for him to try, this argument about technical distinctions between the two policies establishes means of circumventing.
  12. Typically an arbitrary interp, but T-substantial could be applicable. The un way to do T debates: combine all 3 of the above violations into one shell and then strategically choose interps to kick or extend based on how well the 2ac contextualizes their standards debate to your shell
  13. I feel like you're trying to make the argument that US first strike stops second strike capabilities, thus no retaliation and no extinction. Which I don't think will pan out as much of an argument. Do research into nuclear policy and nuclear security. Read some more into IR scholars and you just might find that, but eh. Russia definitely has effective second strike capabilities.
  14. Gotta say, I loved the Jeffery Lewis interview. It's nice to hear from former debaters in the professional world, especially ones who are highly reputable in their field (#nukes).
  15. @seanarchy I am with you ethically. Trump is awful, genocide is bad, racism is bad. All of these posts rise to the level of why you think ktyler is dealing in intolerant ideas, but are a) tinged with an aggressive and dismissive tone and b) don't really try to engage meaningfully with ktyler. Countering intolerance should go beyond just saying "this is racist or privileged" and aim to both understand why those beliefs are held and moving from there in the language of who you're talking to why those ideas are intolerant and should be rejected. Taking an empathetic approach to encountering intolerant ideas is a better method for fostering an inclusive community. Be mindful that the "exclusion" of ideas in aiming for a better society is what creates the victimized attitude of white identity politics that got Trump elected. Whether or not you think that's a good excuse for white identity politics is irrelevant because that's how they feel. An underlying goal of debate is effective communication. That's way the vast majority of college debate programs are housed in the Communications Department and the Directors are usually tenured comm professors (or at least policy, I'm not that aware of other college debate activities). Communication as a skill translates in a variety of ways: politics (at a variety of levels), law (ridic long list of former debaters practicing law, the USMA director writes for Lawfare), activism (The Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle grassroots think tank comes to mind), journalism (Nate Silver, Nate Cohn). All of those fields involve persuasion. On an interpersonal level, I think that the skill of being able to dissect ideas, understand them, and approach them in that language is a valuable approach to persuasion and most effective. I don't really know why ktyler would feel like he would need to be open to you changing his mind when this thread was created as a roast of him and I don't think you took a particularly passive stance yourself. I admittedly didn't as well when I quoted your post and I apologize for that. Public call outs with seeming little intention of trying to work with someone you disagree with come across that way to me, with a notable exception for public officials and celebrities who by nature operate in that sphere. That may not have been your intention and I'm sorry for mis-attributing it to you. But really, I'm not a 4channer saying feminism is a feel-good enterprise or conspiracy to take down men.
  16. You are so full of yourself. Call out culture is toxic hot garbage that accomplishes nothing but personal good feelings and alienation of the person/people called out, which fosters increasingly isolated feelings and entrenched beliefs, which makes it worse. There are productive ways of engaging with people whose beliefs you see as wrong, which involves meaningful dialogue. The underlying purpose of learning argumentation and rhetoric in debate is learning how to persuade. IRL convos outside of debate rounds involve persuading the other person, not an audience. You're just playing to an audience and presenting yourself as morally superior. This is both the lowest tier of slacktivism and emblematic of having learned nothing meaningful from debate and how to translate it into real personal interactions. Try acknowledging different beliefs OR just that someone does hail from a different circuit that necessitates playing to a different audience and moving from there to explain why you think theres something wrong with it. Saying 90% of the debate community would be turned off by his aff is woefully ignorant of the heterogeneity of high school debate circuits; maybe he doesn't believe these things and has this case written for the conservative parents that judge texas uil tournaments. Maybe the research burden on current events and their implications is different. This thread should be locked and holed or just deleted.
  17. Hello Cross-X members, Since the functional death of cross-x.com a few years ago the debate community has experienced a scattering of online community and communication. Between CPD, HSPD, reddit, cedaforums, different discord servers, and a handful of blogs, interview series, and websites, debate lacks a dedicated, centralized node for community discussion. As long-time cross-x users ourselves, we feel that the loss of this kind of truly valuable and unique community space should spurn the birth of a new platform for discussion. And so it has! Colin Dailey and I are proud to announce to launch of Policydb8.com - a new website created by debaters for debaters. We feel that providing a space that can create and strengthen connections not only within college debate but also between the high school and college debate communities is an essential cornerstone of the growth of debate writ-large and will have a lot of benefits moving forward. Forums like these provide a comfortable space for the creation of debate sub-culture and memes and allows debaters to relax and have fun, but more importantly they act as a pillar that grows interest and participation in the activity: from practice debates conducted online to evidence sharing and co-operative argument production to finding coaching resources and learning materials, the list goes on. While Policydb8.com will bring some of the forum features that you're familiar with, such as: - Live Video Conferencing - Screen Sharing - A Fully Functional File Marketplace - Clubs for Teaching and Competing - An Active Debate Calendar - A Central Hosting Site for Debate Streams - Articles, Interviews, and More from Debaters and Coaches We also want to provide a few services that we feel don't exist now: - A Centralized Coaches-for-Hire Directory - we want to create a space for coaches who are looking for work to post their credentials and put themselves out there for hire. The current struggle of posting in each facebook page and hoping enough of your friends promote your post (or that the right team sees it and reaches out for that matter) is a mess, and we'd like to make it a lot easier. Imagine having a single searchable directory where high school students in need of coaching can look through a list of coaches for hire and decide who they'd like to work with the most or who fits them the best. - An Archive - While this is not something we're 100% on yet, we'd like to get your feedback on the idea of creating a centralized archive for debate videos and past streams. Many debates exist on youtube, some exist on vimeo, others are scattered around different smaller websites or are merely sitting on hard drives in a closet. We will obviously never put a debate into the archive that a participant or institution asks us not to post and are aware of the sensitive nature of handling optics when publishing debate videos. That being said, we know there's a lot of interest in the community for being able to watch old debates and learn from them, and so we want to test the waters and get some opinions on how this could best be done. We plan to bring even more features to the website and would love your feedback on the kinds of things you'd like to see out of us. We're happy to answer any questions you have, whether you hate the website or you love it. Thanks for your time! We hope you'll come check out our website, create an account, and post an introduction in the forums! We'll keep you updated via our Twitter and Facebook pages. Twitter: https://twitter.com/policydb8 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Policydb8/
  18. This would be a great use of the clubs feature on Policydb8.com! We actually have a club pre-made for novice debaters to collaborate with one another. If you would prefer to work with debaters across all skill levels, by all means start your own club! The High School Novice club on Policydb8 can be found here: https://www.policydb8.com/clubs/12-high-school-novice/
  19. Hi novice debaters! I would like to invite all of you to the High School Novice discussion club on Policydb8.com! Policydb8 enables users to participate in (and create) sub-forums in the website that can range from fully public to totally private. Myself and my partner in launching Policydb8 have already created a club for novices that is intended to be closed from public view so you all can have a private collaborative space to figure out debate with one another and work together! Come check it out here: https://www.policydb8.com/clubs/12-high-school-novice/ Hope to see you on Policydb8!
  • Create New...