Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


toastn1nj4 last won the day on January 9 2013

toastn1nj4 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16 Good

About toastn1nj4

  • Rank
  • Birthday July 5

Profile Information

  • Name
  • Location
  1. #tbt to when there even WAS a Washington, I guess Best judge: Taylor Coles Best coach: Sue Mohn, obvi Best squad/school: Vashon did aite Best team: SGS RM for life and death Best aff team: gprep js Best neg team: sgs rm Best kritik debater: Isaac Best straight-up policy debater: Liam Donnelly Best aff: HSR to Mexico Best negative position: T-QPQ and case Most persuasive speaker: kashif, Most helpful person: mccool Most hardworking debater: yae-rang, lili Fastest debater: Lili Best debater overall: Stephanie Permut Novice to watch out for next year: aria from vashon, Jason and Colin from Ingy The best team next year: Interlake GY and HJ Squad to watch out for next year: Interlake ngl Funniest debater: Isaac Most fun debater to judge/watch: Isaac Rookie team of the year: jason and colin from ingraham Most underrated team: mt vernon hk Most underrated debater: kate from sgs Most improved debater: callan foster Most improved team: Vashon SZ
  2. Head Royce's Invisible Cities K: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Head+Royce+%28CA%29+-+Adam+Pease+%26+Robbie+Manley#Negative-Kritik-Invisible%20Cities
  3. xylum (http://xdi.tumblr.com) happens July 13-27, so not exactly first half of summer, but that's a K camp if I ever saw one -- the faculty is badass Also UTNIF http://utdebatecamp.com/policy-debate-camps/
  4. I actually don't think Heidegger and anthro jive super well, but that's just me. I've seen it run with bioD/collisions I don't even know
  5. I have a full case neg too, PM me if you want it edit: it's actually for a critical version with tech thought and anthro advantages, so it might not be as useful
  6. Meanwhile we're sitting here doing UPS politics updates jk see you tomorrow
  7. 1. Pick your battles - choosing your aff wisely allows you to focus prep on the most critical 1AR areas. I read a questionably topical aff, and a critical aff, which meant I could block out T/framework/cap extensions. Also, write case extensions to use in a time-crunched situation, which will allow you to weigh key offense in the 2AR even if some of the technical aspects of the flow are dropped. Always have modular condo 1AR blocks. 2. Make really good 2AC blocks - two reasons for this. First, it gives your 1A something to read before the round so that they understand the crux of your answer to the argument. If you want, tell them which args in your blocks you want in the 2AR, so they can focus on learning the warrants/writing extensions for these in particular. Second, it minimizes 2AC prep. I've been able to give a lot of standup 2AC's just because I had blocks to most of the arguments in the 1NC. 3. Explain the critical pieces of 1AC evidence to your partner before the round. Oftentimes novices don't understand that extensions need to reference evidence, and instead start summarizing the advantage. e.g. "When you extend the econ impact, reference the Royal evidence. He cites warrants like trade, interdependence, miscalc, and diversionary theory." 4. Learn to give 2AR's with very little prep. Use 2NR prep to write down the three args you'll go for on the flows you think are real 2NR options. During the 2NR, I grab a new sheet of paper and flow the 2NR on one side in one color, and my 2AR on the other side, so that I can see how the big-picture stuff I'm going for interacts with the 2NR, and so I can make sure not to drop anything critical. 5. Shadow-flow the block. Getting a flow of the 2AC is critical for this, and something I have a hard time with, because my novice partner can't backflow for me. If I'm hitting a team I know always reads cap, I'll flow my cap 2AC in the 1AC. When I ran the questionably T aff, I preflowed my 2AC T block on several pieces of paper. Fill in everything else in 2NC prep. While the block is happening, flow the neg arguments, then flow the 1AR responses with a different pen at the same time. As soon as the 1NR is done start explaining the arguments to your 1A, dictating key phrases if wording is important. Make sure they're writing it down. Expect the first few such 1AR's to be trainwrecks (they will nod while you are talking in prep, then forget everything when they stand up). 6. Limit your interventions, but don't be afraid to intervene if it will lose you the round. Because you shadow-flowed during the block, you should have your map for the 1AR already written down. Follow along as your partner talks and catch any big mistakes. If you do narrate things in the 1AR, be sure to only say a few words at a time so they can accurately parrot. Bear in mind your 1A will probably be really stressed. 7. If there's a really obscure K in the block or something, give the other flows to the 1A to prep after briefly explaining which 2AC arguments you want extended, and write out the 1AR on the K verbatim in Word. Bear in mind if the 1A is a novice, he/she may not understand shorthand (e.g. "we control i/l - sec logic prereq to cap" or whatever), which is why writing it out word-for-word helps. 8. Learn to give 2AR's that do a lot of new analysis without sounding like new analysis. This is why it's important to dictate specific phrases for the 1AR - if you have ways you always spin args in the 2AR, having exact quotes carry over, especially if they're memorable, will make the judge more psychologically inclined to accept your extrapolation, even if they don't remember the word usage specifically.
  8. http://tinyurl.com/2013conwayresults
  9. Out of Dogma's list, especially: GBN Donovan/Matlin - Tommy is excellent Lexington Krishnan/Fraser - Arjun is also very good Bishop Guertin Demers/Iuliano - Mike ditto above Dexter Sadler/Maxey - Jake is quite good, but I think Amelia has the definite edge ICW Moser/Yan - not entirely sure about Kai (I know he is very good), but Amelia is excellent Niles West Noparstak/Placitis - slight edge to Theo, both very good
  10. toastn1nj4

    Fed Da

    What do you use? I agree it's kind of a lolwut abbreviation but I can't think of a better one...
  11. I think a big problem (and a difficulty I encountered running this aff at camp) is the phrasing of the plantext, and misunderstanding of the word "for." This is the plantext I read at camp (which is identical to the one in the file with the addition of the word "surface"): When we wrote this plantext, our intention was for the plantext to mandate that all of the funds go directly and only into surface transportation. We read a manufacturing advantage premised off the actual building of surface TI, we read addons based on mass transit and highways, we were prepared to defend any disad to the building of surface transportation — so yes, we defended the consequences of STI investment; no, our advantages were not solely predicated off of the tax increase: Now in our plantext, we thought the word "for" functioned as a grammatically correct indicator of the mandate of the funding's direction. However, after a few T debates, it became clear judges and debaters unfamiliar with the aff assumed (probably justifiably) that "for" was a description of where the gas tax funding generally goes, an "FYI" if you will; this is basically the point expressed by Mister T: I think for 2A's trying to run this aff during the year, it's important to figure out a wording of the plantext such that it is very clear to both teams and the judge that the mandate of the plan is for all gas tax revenues to go directly and only to transportation infrastructure.
  12. toastn1nj4

    Fed Da

    Oh, also, I recommend downloading the federalism DA file put out by Michigan 7 Week. I worked on that file, particularly aff answers, and if you have any questions you can PM me.
  13. toastn1nj4

    Fed Da

    Federalism (we'll call it fism for short) itself is the balance of power between the larger (federal) entity/government and smaller (state-level) entities/governments. In debate, federalism is generally used to mean "state powers"; i.e. "fism high now" means "state powers are currently high in comparison to federal powers." The argument has something to do with the 10th Amendment which delegates any power not expressly given to the federal government, to state jurisdiction. The underlying premise of the fism DA is that state powers are good and too much federal power is bad. The problem with this DA is that there is rarely a specific reason why state power is high in the status quo (it's a very hard thing to quantify, particularly with respect to TI), and rarely a specific brink to why the plan in particular destroys state jurisdiction. In my opinion, it's a pretty terrible standalone disad because besides the above problems, the uniqueness is super questionable but since agenda DA's are probably dead until after the election, it might be one of the only viable options for NB's to the states counterplan. One version of the argument goes something like this: Uniqueness - fism high now Link - the plan kills fism Internal link/impact - fism k2 prevent violence, war, secessions, etc. Uniqueness - this is generally really shady. It basically says in the status quo, federalism is fine, i.e. the states have sufficient powers. However, when fism is read as a net benefit to the states counterplan, it's slightly different; the CP gives uniqueness to the DA - basically the CP gives control of TI to the states, which naturally increases fism from the status quo no matter how much power the states have right now. Aff answers - if read as a standalone DA, definitely attack this by saying the federal government has substantially more power than the states in regulating transportation infrastructure - the Interstate Commerce Clause would be a good example. Also, you can argue fed control inevitable (this can be empirically proven, OR check your politics answers - if special interests/the GOP are pushing for government control of pipelines, this could be an argument for why fed control is inevitable) Link - your plantext is probably something along the lines of, "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its investment in carbon pipelines." The neg will say, because you are substantially increasing the federal government's involvement in carbon pipelines, it necessarily trades off with state powers. Aff answers - no link (fism not zero-sum; just because you increase USFG involvement doesn't mean the states necessarily take a hit to their power), thumper (basically, the link is nonunique - something else is currently draining state power - e.g. the historical trend in increased federal control of transportation infrastructure), link turn (federal control is key to state powers - cut Kirk 9 for this) Internal link - generally says that federalism, or strong powers of smaller/regional groups, is key to prevent violence and wars when the smaller groups feel they are underrepresented/not given enough power, etc. One variant is that other countries will model US practices of federalism. Sometimes people will read Calabresi 95 (which is a pretty lousy card - more on that in a bit), which says burgeoning democracies as well as countries like Germany, Austria, Russia, India, and Nigeria are modeling the US's fism and need the practice of federalism to ensure stability. Aff answers - no internal link (fism not k2 prevent violence/secession/war, alt causes, etc.), internal link turn (overpowered local groups are a faster internal link to war OR US-style fism makes inevitable conflict in other nations with fundamentally incompatible political layouts), no internal link uniqueness (IF APPLICABLE - other nations don't model the US; specifically, you can say anything by Calabresi 95 is outdated - the card cites South Africa as an example, but in 1996 South Africa ratified its constitution to follow the German model in lieu of American fism, and since then burgeoning African governments look to South Africa's example) Impact - war/violence/conflict is bad, I guess? Aff answers - nation-specific impact D relating to any particular countries where the neg claims stability is key Also, look for cards which can be used in different ways - reading them in the 2AC labeled as one thing, and have the 1AR extending as an answer to a different issue to save time. For example, when read as a NB to the states CP, most link turns could double as net benefits to the permutation - any reason federal control of TI is a prerequesite to plan solvency/state powers is a reason why the perm solves better. Any reason power is not zero-sum is a reason fed-state cooperation solves.
  14. I'd likewise be up for the opt-in casebook. Nature Boy, I talked to Marlene at camp, and she said Ballard would be on the NDCA wiki due to more national circuit travel? I'll also be disclosing strats, especially for Whitman and Gonzaga. What were those, if I many ask?
  • Create New...