Jump to content

OGRawrcat

Member
  • Content Count

    2153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    114

Everything posted by OGRawrcat

  1. OGRawrcat

    Evazon

    I've had files pending for months even after messaging and getting replies
  2. I think the technical term is a triple double.
  3. Originally posted in misc but didnt see it come up in home page feeds. Hi, I'm Colin. I'm offering up my services as a virtual coach. Been in debate for a decade, 3 years debating in high school, 4 years in college, 3 years coaching in college at GMU. I'm comfortable with every skill level, but I most enjoy working with jv/novice debaters. I'm comfortable with arguments from varying ideological camps, though most familiar with the policy side of things. I started debate in old school rural Texas debate, so I know how to coach on less progressive circuits as well. I'm more interested in helping with skills development than just handing over files. Things this would entail: - Strategy/prep discussion - Argument discussion - File/research direction and review; includes sending articles to cut for files, identifying weak points, direction on file formatting, and other things - Practice speeches (redos, shotgun speeches, etc) - Weekly video chats to do one or more of the above items (~1 hr long) - Available by email or messaging most of the time (gotta sleep and do other things) Things this would not entail: - Tournament travel (unless circumstances permit) - Providing or cutting cards/files for you. I may toss a handful of cards your way to help round out a file or because I got excited about something I read, but really, this isn't included and shouldn't be expected. My intention is skills building (coaching), not feeding evidence. - Unprofessional communication. There will be no personal phone or social media communication. All communication would be over cross-x, email, or slack (I'll create a slack for people i coach) and using jitsi.org for video chat. A caveat here is I want to speak to parents before starting any payment or services. This is all about maintaining a professional working relationship. - Coaching a whole squad altogether. I guess it could happen if partnerships all signed up with me, but coordinating whole squads is like herding cats and, to be frank, I'm not interested. Pricing: - $180/month for a single student - $220/month for a partnership In an effort to make my conclusion on pricing both transparent and objective, here is how I came to those numbers: - Between the hour long video meeting, file review, discussions that happen over messaging/email, and research I assist you with, I'm approximating that to be about 3 hours a week. - I think $15/hr is fair, so $45/week - 4 weeks a month, boom, $180 - Partnerships mean 2 people and likely needing to do video meetings for each individual or extended video meetings for both together, so slight increase in price that in reality is a discount to individual students. I recognize you are all high school students who may even have to pay with money you earn with your own jobs. I'm happy to discuss special circumstances on pricing to meet you partway. Don't try to take advantage of me and lie, I'm trying to be helpful. Feel free to ask questions in this thread, but DM me if you're interested.
  4. I like this post. I largely agree with it and admit any disagreement I do have could be considered exceptional. One way to potentially mitigate the race to the absurd is through topic selection. There is a lot of hate toward narrow topics generally, one in particular that comes to mind is the college healthcare topic, derided as the "single payer" topic because the wording was fairly narrow to primarily that aff (I'm not talking down to you, explaining to the high school members). However, because of limited scope of affs to read, DA's, CP's to read, etc, I judged some in-depth case debates. Even with critical debates I judged, there was a lot of depth to the history of healthcare and discussion of the details of how it's operationalized now. Watching the Democratic primary "debates," I was simultaneously angry at the sheer lack of depth any candidate could get into on healthcare issues (we're in debate, we know a minute is enough to answer cost of medicare for all questions with 5+ points) and in awe thinking of debates I had judged at even the novice and JV level that had significantly more meat of discussion to them because of a topic that lent itself to case debates because of the structural constraints to be had. I can think of a number of debaters who at 18 or 19 years old could have given better responses or outright shown up people vying for the presidency. A lot of the evidence on that topic was fantastic as well. Admittedly, the healthcare topic may have been the goldilocks topic for timeliness and social pervasiveness. The information overload is a good and bad thing. The expectation of ridiculously high levels of research also has the effect of leading to deeper discussions on singular issues. Debate before computers became the norm valued analytics more highly (which is good and a skill that would be useful to deconstruct frankensteined economics arguments like you mentioned), but it by nature privileged spin over research. While I think the former is better for skills development, the latter is better for knowledge. Of course, this isn't to say that you're wrong. The move by a lot of teams is to just horizontally spread rather than vertically spread, moving to the absurd outskirts of the topic. A lot of teams A big downside like you mentioned is mental health, which matters far more than any kind of skills development or pedagogy. It's not just the ideologies, but the absurd work commitments necessary to succeed are extremely stressful. For anyone who wants to be competitive, doing debate work is at the forefront of everything. If the average pace that people consider the goal for card cutting is 5 cards an hour (varies), you're looking at something like 10-20 hours to pump out a new DA (a bit less if you have backfiles to cover the impact section). Could you do that in a week? Sure. But you also have classes, sleeping, eating, and some kind of recreation to do in there as well. Not to mention other debate-related activities; gotta do team meetings, practice speeches, speech redos, etc etc etc. God forbid you also need to have a job to get by, sounds like someone is gonna miss out on going to district because they let debate slip and couldn't get some assignments submitted or they let school slip and their GPA has them ineligible. There is a good example of a squad that knows how to do more with less. University of Mary Washington keeps a small squad, but manages to be nationally competitive by a) having stellar coaches and b) honing in on a few core arguments that they develop continually, focusing on depth and the substantive strength of arguments. Admittedly, they adhere to the policy side of debate, but they've kept themselves above the proliferation of "gotcha" arguments.
  5. I've been interested in trying to acquire it. Talking to David with my compatriots didn't get too far, negotiation fizzled out. This was a few months ago. I've also mentioned to David I would be interested in working as an administrator for the site and managing it for him. Given I made an attempt to create an alternate using the same platform, I know how the site works and have some big ideas on expanding it. I've messaged him a handful of times about this since the site purchase proposal, but I haven't heard back from him at all.
  6. tbh I don't. Haven't dealt with an arms sales topic before. Chances are you can find a lot of those cards in camp files, especially in K answers or framework files in the TVA sections. I recommend doing your own research before waiting on camp stuff to fully come out. Best way to look at those files is to fill gaps in your files, not to rely on them. With personal research, you'll learn more about the topic and how you want to debate it, you'll know your aff better, and you're more likely to find something unique to include in your aff. If you want evidence about militarism and military policy, you should look at the college 14-15 caselist for the military topic. BUT (big but), this is most useful for generics for like answering K's and impact work. Specific always > generics. While I'm thinking about it, a note on writing the 1ac. As you find more, especially as camp files come out and there's bound to be at least one or two ban arms sales affs, you'll be inclined to include as many diverse arguments as possible in the 1ac. Don't. Keep it simple. US militarism impact (aim for structural violence-esque impacts to let you get more clash against util DA impacts), global spillover argument, then broader militarism impact, and militarism root cause of war, solvency mech, and something that's useful to add on to structural violence plan text affs is a discourse-based argument about taking stances against militarism or something. Framing the round outside of the plan gives you some more leverage against DA impacts by refocusing the impact debate to in-round representations before substantive impacts.
  7. It doesn't really matter what the K is if it's remotely topic related, you'll have the same perm argument that you eliminate a core facet of how the US exports militarism globally, obvi would be in conjunction with the alt. The big question is if you can hit home the solvency arg that state actions are needed to change violent policies like arms sales. Most dangerous kind of cp is like what I said, pics. Besides that, people will fall back to agent CPs with politics or whatever. Process CPs are other generics to watch out for. You'll link to pretty much every DA. That's fine. Your game plan against DAs with this kind of aff is to win on the impact framing debate, win aff impacts turn DA impacts, and critique the DA impact. The uniqueness/link portion of the DA is less important. I think an argument to look out for is "other countries fill in." Big thing here is that you should have US arms sales bad specifically, like maybe we use arms sales to leverage a dangerous agenda, US arms cause x impacts, whatever. The next thing you should try to have is a global spillover solvency argument. Maybe a US ban increases credibility of anti arms sales agreements, or gives US leverage to countries that relied on US arms. One thing to look forward to is if someone decides to jump right into arms sales key to heg. Have that impact turn debate prepped tf out. Your aff gets there but this is a great place for a 2ac dump. You want to force that to be the neg block and maybe 2nr option because of the offense you can garner off of it.
  8. Quick question, if the other team read a T argument against you in the 1nc that said it would be abusive to make that no link argument, wouldn't you still make a counter interp argument that would justify that interp? Like if you read a single weapon system aff, a team would read substantial reduce T and say that you could no link a relations DA because your aff is too small to link. You would clearly read a counter interp saying that your single weapon system aff would be a substantial reduction, which would justify those kinds of no link arguments. My point is that T isn't static and you should have an interpretation of T that justifies those kinds of arguments. THEREFORE, if they don't say you're untopical or have an interpretation that would make you untopical, why would you say you're untopical? There hasn't been an interp in the debate saying you're outside of the topic. When the neg doesn't question your aff's topicality, then presume the aff is unquestionably T. Make the no link arg, don't say that it makes you untopical.
  9. Make it topical. DCS and FMS compose all of US arms sales. Say ban all DCS and FMS, be ready to defend that "substantially reduce = eliminate." Target your offense on US militarism being bad with impacts about US militarism being specifically bad (so fill-in arguments don't thump your impact) AND that US arms sales fuels global militarism (get that internal link to solving global arms sales ready). You're way more likely to lose to "US should ban all arms sales" as a topical version on a T debate than you are to lose to a "other countries fill in" or generic topic DA. Biggest threat is actually just PICs more so than nit picky solvency arguments or common DAs you can prep the hell out of, so be ready on a) ending ALL arms sales necessary to solve the aff and b) PICs bad theory. Best way to prep for PICs is to check out DAs from the camps and on the eventual caselist to see what country-specific or equipment-specific DAs exist and then try to have an impact turn debate/k of impact debate ready to go.
  10. I'm not sure what you mean by conservative arguments. State action good, defenses of liberalism (the economic system, not the questionably applied term to political parties), defenses of US military force, climate skepticism, prioritization of economic impacts, market solutions to linear or systemic problems (a big part of the education topic was charter schools), etc etc. Framework arguments, identity/experience focus bad arguments, non-state action bad arguments, etc are all mainstream and acceptable. If you have judges who don't like procedural framework, cool, answer the case and read a state action CP instead of a TVA with your topic action or state action DA and case offense as net benefits. Common arguments that have persisted for a long time that could be branded as "left" would be things like US hegemony/militarism being bad (which could be a fiscal conservatism argument), climate change, economic justice, etc. K debate has even been around since the early 90s, the first K read being a Critical Legal Studies argument. Identity critiques have been around for 10-15 years. The big differences now are a generational turnover to coaches/judges who won't outright refuse to vote on critiques, identity critiques specifically, and the refinement/elaboration of this area of Ks. And yet, the conservative arguments listed above are still mainstream and acceptable in debate. Simple truth is that if you feel like these arguments are being boxed out because your opponents are like "that's offensive," of course they'll say that. It's apart of the argument they're making and it's apart of the emotional and moral appeal of their argument. If judges are telling you that you're being offensive, then it's an argument packaging problem. No argument is unbeatable. The critique, especially identity critiques, are approached by young debaters as insurmountable and confusing etc etc. That combined with the aggressive/emotional presentation of a lot of K debaters makes it look like impossible and almost taboo to debate against some of these arguments. My tips: 1) Get familiar with the arguments you plan to debate, understand the basic structure and core claims they rely on, prep for that. More importantly, understand why these arguments feel necessary beyond branding every k debater as someone trying to exploit a particular cause. 2) Make effective use of your cross-x. Pin the other team down to reduceable core parts of their argument that you have to beat and focus your answers there, particularly framing arguments intended to be a barrier to you getting to weigh your offense (once you get past a framing argument or two, you're more than likely down to just an impact debate). I promise you that most Ks don't have more than like 5 or 6 core parts that underlies all of their offense. Some arguments entirely hinge on 1 core claim (example being ontology-based identity Ks) and if you focus on that, then suddenly get to talk about state engagement/inclusion, your impacts, etc in a substantive way. 3) Get thicker skinned and a bit more detached without being apathetically offensive. Chances are if your opponent is branding anything you say as offensive without much other substance in answers, then they're likely in a corner with how to answer that argument (unless you're legit being offensive). If you get upset that you're being called some kind of "-ist" then you've reacted exactly how your opponent wants you to.
  11. 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."
  12. 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).
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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).
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...