Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Good

About AdamM

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/26/1995

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Wichita Trinity Academy -> K-State
  • Location
    Wichita, KS
  • Occupation
    Assistant Debate Coach, Server
  1. Name: Adam McKinney School: K-State Major: Political Science Debating (Y/N): Yes
  2. AdamM

    2014 State Results

    Does anyone have results for the other state tournaments? If any of the information I have is not correct, let me know. 4A 2 Speaker state: Quarters: Spring Hill (Kaechele/Lingenfelter) def. McPherson Spring Hill (Martin/Cin) def. Tonganoxie Trinity (McKinney/Phillips) def. Tonganoxie (Lingo/Maurer) 3-0 Fort Scott (Slinkard/Nielson) def. Spring Hill (Fenton/Boudreau) 2-1 Semis: Trinity (McKinney/Phillips) def. Spring Hill (Martin/Cin) 2-1 Fort Scott (Slinkard/Nielson) def. Spring Hill (Kaechele/Lingenfelter) Finals: Fort Scott (Slinkard/Nielson) def. Trinity (McKinney/Phillips) 2-1 Congratulations to Fort Scott on their State Championship. Also, shout out to Spring Hill for a strong showing.
  3. A judge's RFD against one of our novice teams was this - "Aff said "even if freight transportation is sufficient, why not increase funding and make it better," which implies that funding is your inherent barrier. The policy debate handbook, page 28 I believe, states funding can not be your inherent barrier. The neg needs one stock issue to win and the concern brought up was never dissolved."
  4. Does anyone have the results yet? With the weather situation my partner and I were forced to leave after watching 4A 2 Speaker octas. Also, can anyone give me a breakdown on the traffic incident in front of the high school that Nickerson was involved in? Was the nickerson team that qualified able to compete in their next round? Thanks.
  5. I tend to disagree when links are usually super generic, although this is not always the case. If you have good specific links (Possibly auto industry), then by all means, go for it. You can still run spending. Why not run spending? Again, this has already been discussed. With all the different predispositions that lay judges will be subject to, this comes with a significant risk and may not be the best idea.
  6. AdamM


    The solvency debate is critical. Both for the case and the net benefit, but frequently it's more important for the case solvency. That's because It's often easier to prove (Or disprove, for that matter) your net benefit than it is to show you solve the aff case. The case solvency debates tend to get muddled, so if you can clearly show you solve the aff, you'll probably win. Also, framing how the CP fits into the round is important. If you have some DA's or other off case arguements that link to both the CP and the affirmative, that's okay, as long as you spend some time explaining. You would want to frame it along the lines of - "Judge, evaluate the disadvantages to the plan first. But even if you by the aff plan, prefer the neg. counter plan for X, Y, and Z reasons." A lot of the rounds I've run or ran against counterplans, the team that best frames how the CP fits into the round often comes out on top.
  7. I'm curious to see if you actually have any literature talking specifically about the roads on reservations. All the aff evidence I saw when I debated this aff was just generic cards that didn't actually talk about the reservations themselves. Rather, they just expressed general statistics about how long it takes the government to build a road or a highway or something like that. It could have just been the aff team, but I'm tending to believe there isn't a lot of evidence out there for that.
  8. AdamM


    You could run an Ice Age DA. A lot of aff's are claiming an environmental advantage this year and that's pretty effective against them. Also, depending on how you debate, you could consider running Dedev and then something like the beef DA. I wouldn't recconmend it on a lay circut though.
  9. I thought it was important enough to bring this back up, though Phantom partially covered it.. But any half-way decent affirmative team should be able to neuter Jackson-Vanik with the Elections arg. It totally destroys the link. It would be fallacious to claim the link (Obama's political capital declines) when we're asking ourselves if he's even going to win the election. ^This. I wouldn't waste a lot of your time answering JV, because it's a really weak disadvantage right now with the elections looming. Use your time to answer more relevant negative arguements. On Elections, This is the way I would go. Make a few analytics and turn it if you can.
  10. AdamM

    Natives Aff

    That sounds like it could be a viable cp, Lothar. And Heidegger would be good as well if I could find a strong enough link, espeically since I could use a lot of the cards I cut from last year's rez on that kritik. What about case specific args?
  11. AdamM

    Natives Aff

    Have any of you ran into the Natives aff this year? I've hit it a couple times so I was wondering if anyone had any negative strategies to suggest. I was thinking T on "it's" because the reservations are their own soverign powers and technically not part of the the federal government. Basically the plan text mandates funding the construction of better roads and transportation in the reservations, with the natives building it themselves, so the aff is stimulating jobs. I can specify further about the plan if anyone needs me to.
  12. If that's the case, it wouldn't be difficult just to write your own. It would be a fairly straightforward theory arg.
  13. I can't see a lot of solid links to this years topic..
  14. I have heard that individuals/teams that qualify for both extemp and policy may have to choose due to conflicting schedules. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?
  • Create New...