Jump to content

debatefool

Member
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Good

About debatefool

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/12/1995
  1. I don't think Hunters and Jacob's want, of West texas to go progressive, is a means of mindless robots. Your interpretation to how education should go about and their interpretation of how education should come about via debate, I agree should be respected. However, the question then becomes which methodology is producing what we call "education", more educational. Their method entails telling the debaters what they need to work on. This then allows, for the obvious reasons, to make things better. Make things better in the sense that they know what they did wrong. They know what happened, and how they can improve. The next things about disclosure of affs. Come on now, is it really educational for teams to read weird affs, that has hardly any literature basis except in regards to the basis of the aff? There's enough judges in the general who do not like the T debate. Even if you convince me that a majority of judges will buy T in that area, which they may and frankly I don't really care, the principle of fairness is just completely down the drain. Debates are supposed to be fun but, what happens when all the time one team wins because they have arguments that no one else knows about? How is that, in turn, education? Debates where one team has no idea what is going on, and the other team in all honesty, tells barley anything about the aff except that the other side dropped it. For spreading, anyone can really get good at spreading. It takes time, patience, reading drills, ect. It's not like a particular person, unless they physically (such as a large speech impediment) or mentally can not do it. Spreading, also increases education. It allows for greater indepth argumentation due to a increased pace of speed. Finally, it's not very fair when evidence is not called out after the round. I remember as a freshman, going into these rounds where teams would have weird affs that no one has heard about. Talk about why the evidence is terrible, and it not be called for. A lot of the time, the judges hate that too. I mean, what can you do? If that and T is all you have. In retrospect, I offer the last following comments. I think Hunters suggestion about what we should, as said above, is education. Your comment above about people being educators, and about you and others have a process of educating your kids is fair. No one should ever tell you what you're doing is in correct. What you're doing, is educational. HOWEVER, depriving kids of the above things, and maybe more or a little less, is depriving them a opportunity for education. What are paradigms? A lens through which we view something, correct? What happens when this lens becomes so narrow? Especially in a activity in which we all participate in? The education, becomes narrower and narrower. Education, yes, still happens. The question becomes, how much of a depth of education. IS denying these things good? Is denying them a chance to view things in a different lense, such as what they suggest, bad? On the other hand, is denying them the opportunity to view debate as WTJAZZ indicates, which I agree is educational in it's aspects as hunter's strategy is educational in its different aspects, bad? The question becomes one of a tradeoff. As all people in debate, we should be here for educational purposes. What happens when one lens is destroyed because of a tradeoff as indicated? We should encourage debate of all caliber. One of different perspectives. Will we agree with all of them, obviously not.
  2. debatefool

    Uil State

    Any results on semis parings?
  3. debatefool

    Uil State

    I wouldn't count Lampasas DW out. They're a good team and can adapt very well.
  4. Can you send me that card saying their steel industry collapsed last year
  5. debatefool

    A2: A- Spec

    1. We meet-your plan goes through the USFG 2. You meet-your plan goes through an specific part of the usfg, like the DOT 3-Counter interpretation-the affirmative is allowed to specify their agent through the USFG 4-Counter standards A. Predictable ground-key to an balance of ground between both teams to allow for an viable amount of ground on the agent; they still get the same agrs, but USFG bad specific. B. Topic edu- we debate less about the resolution and more about the actors on the plan, that are really not that import. They get the same DA" regardless of the actor. 5-Don't vote on potential abuse-there only arg is that they get potential abuse and everything is potentially absuvie 6-there's no in round ground loss-make them warrant a ground loss as a reason for you to reject the team for not specifying their agent 7-Cross X checks-you should of asked in cross x 8-Plan text says we reserve the right to clarify-we'll clarify now; the plan goes through X actor.
  6. Unless they're reasonably topical like airport infrastructure. UIL judges especially in a/2a/3a will default on reason-ability, not just competing interpretations.
  7. debatefool

    Uil State

    What was the technicality that Hendrickson dropped on?
  8. debatefool

    Uil State

    I think for 1A semis, it will probably be Thorndale, Farwell, Three river and someone else. That's all I know about 1A For 2A It will most likley White Oak, White Oak, Blanco and Lago Vista. 3A, Athens has 2 really good teams as well As Tyler Chappell Hill (HM). Lampasas DW has an good team as well. I fell like this will be the teams for semis. Also I under covered one 2A team that is really really good. Depending on how it goes down I think Salado could be in finals. Really good speakers, debaters, etc.
  9. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 states that all Transportation infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, highways, ect, that require steel must import their steel from domestic actors. This means the plan increasing steel for their projects will crowd out Chinese Steel which is key to stop their internal links or whatever. Also the Buy American Act states that all American Transportation infrastructure projects have to get their supplies from domestic actors. This would crowd out Chinese steel.
  10. Look at the one on NDCA. It's decent.
  11. Anyone have any neg files that would be applicable. Either specific on case, DA's, politics links, ect.
  12. I was trying to find some bridges negatives files but I could not find any. Does anybody know where I can get some or what some good arguments against bridges affs would be that I could cut myself?
  13. Alright thanks SO much and a lot has been cleared up. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
  14. I'm not sure what this term means and have always seen it in the politics DA files.
×
×
  • Create New...