Jump to content

CrypticKitten

Member
  • Content Count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

CrypticKitten last won the day on January 21 2014

CrypticKitten had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About CrypticKitten

  • Rank
    Champion
  • Birthday 01/13/1996

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nevada
  1. I'm also at Weber! But this is my first college tournament and I'm thinking 3-5 isn't too bad. What's your record? I think you picked up first round against one of my schools teams.
  2. I empathize. Especially coming into college as someone who didn't have the opportunity to debate on the national circuit. Why is everyone so good at this activity?
  3. I can round out the panel if it's cool with everyone
  4. Asking the important questions.
  5. I doubt there's a solvency advocate for something like that. If the military is involved, they're involved because they are going to benefit. That means any research done is probably for military tech or at best dual use tech. It makes no sense that the military would just allow research to be done using their equipment if they are not going to directly benefit.
  6. I think both Kleinman and Alcoff don't really "conclude" either way. (I just through Kleinman in because it was a relatively common card on this arg as well and both are read as "x concludes aff/neg"). Both pretty much say it's situational and that the people shouldn't exploit suffering for their own benefits. As long as your speech is truly empathetic I think it should be an easy arg to win. Problem is this kind of argument is HEAVILY dependent on the round so it's going to be hard to find a straight up answer here. There is no trump card against it or a damning argument to make every single round. This is an argument that I actually like because if you read some stupid ass blocks your coach flashed you before the round you're probably going to end up losing.
  7. As someone who has participated in largely slow debate for the last 4 years I disagree with this so much. Slow debate is much more performance based. Making metaphors and jokes and in general being more entertaining makes it fun. Slow debate is what you make of it and if you spend all your time wishing it was a fast round then you aren't going to enjoy it. If you concentrate on doing what you can with what you got slow debate becomes a fun event.
  8. Eh at the top level I don't think anyone gains an advantage from speed because it's a skill that can be practiced. At lower levels I think it's a bit more negative. I feel like not allowing novices to spread would be an OK idea because it's rather unimportant as far as actual debate skills go and people become discouraged when they lose rounds because they simply got spread out. It kind of twists peoples perceptions to think debate is all about who can talk the fastest when debate is really a game of efficiency. As far as "real world" benefits of spreading being able to analyze rapidly and think critically about a large breadth of information is an extremely valuable skill.
  9. I feel like the value debate in LD is really similar to ROB arguments. With your value you have this central theme in debate that you try to prove your case upholds. So if your value is justice you are telling the judge to vote for whoever upholds justice better. Like Payton said with ROB args, your value doesn't make it impossible for the other team to win but generally favors you. Obviously there are usually competing values as there can be competing ROB arguments. And to win the round you have to prove 1) that your value should be the lens the round is evaluated through and (2) you win in that lens. If you want to have a bit more of a critical spin to your cases then I might begin calling it an ROB but to me it seems really like a semantics issue.
  10. That could be reasonable if that was at like a lay high school tournament.
  11. I've been looking for a few hours and I cannot seem to find a card that says coast guard funding (or more generally maritime security) trades off with funding for border security. Both are funded by the DHS and I figure there's a card out there
  12. Totally misinterpreted your comment then.
  13. I don't think you should punish debaters for lack of disclosure. Especially since it's a relatively new practice. I feel like the practice still hasn't trickled down to people who debate in areas that are more behind the general debate curve. To punish those people is elitist and exclusionist imo.
  14. When you talk about the fact that you need to recognize privilege in the same discussion it's completely contradictory... The discussion was really meh to me. I've watched much more productive discussions, this just felt really unauthentic to me.
  15. Mmm your from NV aren't you?
×
×
  • Create New...