Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About azstud

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM
  1. azstud

    Toc At Large

    Congratulations to all at-large teams. I am sure all are very deserving. However, I think we can all agree that there should still be some transparency in selection criteria. Anyone in my position should be frustrated to see a team like Brophy MM not get an at large even though both debaters have two bids each, but only one bid together. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that this is the case with any other one bid team, yet that was only good enough to get 5th on the waiting list. Likewise I am sure there are other teams that feel their application deserved more credit than it received. Oh well, I am sure it happens every year where a well-deserving team does not make the cut.
  2. azstud

    Lay judges

    As a long-time debater and judge I can say that one of the more important things in debate is judge adaptation. Probably the most important thing my coach told me my sophomore year in high school was "If the judge voted against you...you probably lost." Debate has a lost of subjectivity involved and you have to understand that. As a result, you typically should not blame rounds on "lay judges." This is not saying that all judges are equal but rather lay judges do not go into the round telling themselves: "I think I am going to vote affirmative today" or "I am not voting for you (before the debate takes place". This means that the judge you have is responsive to what you say and it may take a different form of convincing. It seems like running a 2-plank counterplan might have some problems and if you know the judge does not have a lot of judging or debate experience you should adapt accordingly. The better team should win regardless of who the judge is because they tend to be more apt at adapting. Frame the debate such that "as a judge you vote for the better policy option, the affirmative has conceded that our counterplan solves the case better than the affirmative meaning as a policymaker and intellectual individual you have to vote negative." ...ok dont say exactly that, but something of that nature that can communicate the round well. I do agree with what someone said about telling the judge not to let the other team make new arguments in the 2AR because the negative does not have another speech to respond to those arguments.
  3. azstud

    MBA 2010

    I am not sure, all I know is Michael rightfully is lacking funding from parents for the tournament for ditching his brother so unless the school funds it Brophy will not go to MBA.
  4. azstud

    MBA 2010

    I am pretty sure Michael and Zane from Brophy will not be debating together at MBA. -Matt
  5. While interesting, I agree the IMF/World Bank Topic would be an awful resolution to debate. For one it would suggest a radical transformation on precedent for what future topics could look like no longer advocating changes within the USFG but rather things that are impossible for any intellectual individual to advocate within the US which kind of puts a new meaning to policy debate. By this I refer to some of the resolutions suggested in this reform international finance institutions use NON-USFG agents. As mentioned this explodes country counterplans. While I like the immigration topic, it definitely has some issues. I do like the fact that it is interesting and relatively pertinent, however, the wording of the resolutions proposed should really be questioned. One of them suggests "The USFG should reform policies towards illegal aliens in the United States" which allows affirmative biderectionality meaning they could take a hardline or soft stance on immigration. I think in order for immigration to have any chance of flying it should say "promoting rights" or "advancing rights". That being said I think a combination of the 2nd and 3rd resolutions would be viable. Out of the resolutions proposed the second one would be feasible if "increasing/promoting/advancing rights" was added. Regardless, however, one thing I would be VERY WEARY of with the immigration topic is that it is way too politically charged for a policy debate resolution. Many debaters and judges (like myself) have very strong stances on immigration and I fear judge bias on the issue will effect the outcome of certain decisions as a result, The Taboo topic is doable but it seems to promote bad debates and preposterous irony affs that no team wants to debate. Some of these topics honestly promote very bad messages and it would disgust me to see these debated and a potential affirmative win. I think morality at this level should not be brought into the debate round. Additionally, with resolutions like increasing federal regulation explodes ground and can mean both legalization and bans. I will not go into the Nuclear Weapons Policy topic although I do like it. However, my favorite topic is easily the Russia Cooperation one. It seems interesting and a foreign policy topic that I believe hasn't been done on the college level. There seems equitable ground on both sides. Plenty of policy and critique ground so one direction isn't favored over the other. Additionally, the topic doesn't have nearly as much political bias as Taboo and Immigration.
  6. I am really really sorry. I just realized that right after I posted thinking my schedule was free as it had always been that I am likely to be gone that weekend. I am very very sorry for the inconvenience. Could a moderator delete my post.
  7. i just wanted you to know that you were the only one to leave me good rep for that "post in the wrong forum". thanks alot for not flipping out like everyone else on cross-x.

  8. Worst thing? I remember my first tournament ever I ran an Obesity DA against Eating Disorders in the 2NR.
  9. It's interesting you mention this Biscuit. My latest blog entry on Jot by Jot actually concerns Zizek and his views on this subject. Granted my explanation in my blog is an oversimplification, but it is at least explained in more lay terms (and granted reading only 1 and a half zizek books in my life my knowledge is somewhat limited). In brief: The fantasy Zizek outlines is this idea that we live out certain things that we try to perceive as real. The idea is to realize it "to traverse" and break out of this. Zizek offers several different conclusions so it is hard to answer your question on point. The Lacanian route Zizek takes advocates breaking out of particular identities because when we do such a think we label them as subjects in need of something else which inevitable is going to cause a problem. In the context of debate this has often been implied as the plan using a specific solution to carry out a mandate, the problem is that the USFG will do whatever possible to carry out the plan based on how the aff has grounded its terms (for example, the poor...if the poor get aid through plan, if aid isn't decreasing poverty then killing them will in any attempt to carry out mandates of the plan while eliminating poverty). Yes, necessarily my characterization is off, but you asked for simple terms, so there you are.
  10. azstud


    This is a tough question in debate and depends on judges. Honestly, I think the negative needs to clearly articulate a framework as in like Contention 3 FRAMEWORK because as a judge I will always take the position of a policy-making framework even if the negative runs a critique unless there is a clearly outlined framework. I have honestly hated it when teams run a K and the aff doesn't mention framework (and the word framework isn't in the 1NC either) yet the 2NC gets up and says "they dropped our framework, that means they lose." I am fine with critiques, but this to me is ridiculous. In this case, it should never be a round winner/loser. Framework simply is a way to tell the judge how you want her/him to evaluate the round. For example if your neg framework is policy making and the aff provides a better policy, then aff doesn't need to make any attempt to refute the framework to win the debate. If your framework is ethics and the affirmative tries to turn the K saying its bad for ethical reasons I also do not believe that the aff has to outline a separate framework. Then again, all judges are different and I have had judges vote against me for not outlining an alternative framework even when I straight turn the K. I hope that helps to some extent. Any questions, let me know. -Matt
  11. ya, haha, I think this is funny period especially since you hear it like in every dispo debate.
  12. azstud

    The Biofuel File

    Here it is: http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10639 If you have any questions let me know. If you can't read the Word Document, let me know and I will convert it to another format.
  13. Version

    Table of Contents File Contains:*Both Biofuel Good and Bad.*Very offensive Biofuel Bad arguments including Food Prices Turn and Warming Turn.*A complete Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Aff with a 1AC included.The SVO Aff has four advantages in the 1AC: (1) Disease, (2) CO2, (3) Landfills, (4) ANWR. I also cut two potential add-on advantages: Oil Dependency and Economy, so in this file alone there are six different possible advantages to go with if you decide to break out the SVO Aff.

    5.00 USD

  14. "debate is like a funnel it starts out with tons of stuff and then the it gets smaller and smaller." "Let me break down this debate, DA [holds up flow] is a wash, Kritik [holds up flow] is a wash, Counterplan [holds up flow] is a wash, but the negative wins on inherency...see my flow!" "Well, I don't vote on realism because I think the Kritik impacts are very realistic and something we should know about." Judge: "I vote against you because you are elitist" Me: "Anything we could have done to win the debate?" Judge: "No, you are elitist" "I vote aff, but I really don't know why." (when I got up to speak at the podium) Judge: "You look like you are voting in a polling booth"
  15. First, I want to say, I by no means was a particularly fast speaker. Sure I spread, and was moderately fast, but definitely was slower than several opponents, yet would often beat them. You correctly articulate that extending speech times allows more arguments, but the issue truly comes down to covering more arguments in the SAME amount of time. This is like finding out that if your physician could remove your cancer and test you for TB as long as both were accurate (clear in debate sense), then you can do both. Creating a rule that made everyone to speak the EXACT SAME SPEED is IMPOSSIBLE. One way or another, debaters will push the boundaries of what is and isn't too fast because there is no brightline if you are arguing that the brightline isn't clear/flowable to the judge (which you would incredibly unwise if you honestly think judges like hearing or more likely to vote for the team who can speak FASTER than what they can comprehend), This I find to be your weakest argument. The more abusive something is the HARDER it is to win the theoretically abusive position and the EASIER it is to beat debaters who employ these mechanisms. If you are telling me that you cannot beat the "We'll send honeybees" aff to the energy topic, you need to go back to the basics and even worse, if you are telling me that you would not even run T against this case then it is no wonder you have serious problems with debate. Likewise, running the Kritik of Spreading seems like the way to pin them down. If you honestly think that spreading is bad, and you are convinced that the arguments against spreading are better than for spreading (which it is VERY clear that this is your view), then you absolutely should run the Kritik of spreading. Saying that you our at a disadvantage to win with this position is preposterous if you believe spreading is bad. In fact, I would argue that it is easier to beat a team speaking at 300wpm at an unclear pace 100wpm any day. Oh ya, and what I feel like you are missing is that you do not have to cover the myriad of arguments you are worried about if you win the Kritik of spreading which is clearly a procedural of how the debate should be conducted. It is just like topicality, if you lose the entirety of the case and any offcase positions you have but win Topicality YOU WIN. Like I have said, NO LEGIT JUDGE will vote on an argument that they didn't hear or understand. And I would argue that spreading does require a LOT of skills. It requires a great extent of picking and choosing arguments to crystalize in the rebuttels as well as thinking on your feat whether it be jokes or responses with speed. As you said, you knew a good debater who tried to spread and failed. I have seen this to, and this illustrates my point that it is difficult to spread and it IS a skill. At the same time I have seen good debaters spread CLEARLY and you think to yourself (how the hell is he able to come up with a fast, clear rebuttel and not pause like crazy but speak from his flow). Additionally, I think 9 out of 10 people would argue that if you are weaker speaking fast, by all means DONT. There is nobody saying that slower debaters don't win. In fact SEVERAL DO even at the college level and do well, like break at the NDT.
  • Create New...