Jump to content

bolotie

Member
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Okay

About bolotie

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity
  1. More "normal" spikes could be RVIs, neg CPs must be unconditional, no neg fiat, presumption, etc.
  2. There's no such thing. The topic rotations and announcements are as follows: September-October (Announced August 1) November-December (Announced October 1) January-February (Announced December 1) March-April (Announced February 1)
  3. 100%. An LD Round is definitely too short to actually develop the debate, which is insanely frustrating considering how many high-level rounds are decided on it. I meant the structure of the initial shell: In Policy, it seems to be an interp and a litany of reasons to prefer, like I said before. LD shells have clearly demarcated standards, internal links to voters, explanations of the significance of fairness/education, weighing for competing interps vs. reasonability and warrents for drop the arg/debater/team (in policy). The shell structure may not compensate for the round itself, but it generally means that the theory debate is at a minimum easier to follow and flow – it lays potential groundwork for a good debate, at least. I do think RVIs in LD make sense though in a way they probably don't in policy: the aforementioned longer speech times mean that a theory arg usually isn't a huge time sink, and it's usually run as drop the arg. LD theory tends to be drop the debater, and time skew means the neg has an incentive to run theory no matter what – in LD, the aff is usually screwed if it's a no-risk issue.
  4. Probably a good question to ask - in Policy, are you a traditional Policy debater or a K debater? Depending on how you debate now, I can try to give better advice
  5. National circuit LD. 1. The fact that it's still quite new means that norms are evolving quickly and you can do pretty much whatever you want – policy arguments, Ks, theory (b.s. or otherwise), ethical arguments – without too many raised eyebrows 2. This may be a lack of experience personally, but I view policy rounds as too long, actually. Many of the speeches are fairly similar in content from what I've seen, whereas LD collapses more dramatically, and 1AR expansions or NC/1AR Theory can entirely reframe the round. Time skew (1AR) is a problem though. 3. Theory is better developed in execution in LD - the grounding may be more developed in policy, but the execution in LD is more structured and thought out, whereas policy tends to be an interp and a litany of reasons to prefer. Also, who are we convincing? with the exception of RainSilves, everyone's just advocating their format or dodging the question. Every form of debate has some value, but what we pick is probably what we have the most experience with...
  6. That's probably true. I think the reason we're locked into one-sentence simplifications on the national circuit is theory: people tend to construe full descriptions like that is multiple NIBs and run theory. The thing to do is obvious: start doing it and win theory debates - I think the educational advantages are compelling enough.
  7. As someone else mentioned, VBI does have a great top lab, but from what I understand, it's limited to top lab - if you aren't in it, you'd be better served by NSD, which spreads talented lab leaders around more.
  8. In a sense this is true: I would probably do all of these things even if there wasn't side bias. However, I think judges would be far less likely to buy them. AFC, for example, is a far less compelling concept in a world where the only benefit is topical education than in a world where you can say, with statistically significant data, that there's a neg bias and this is the way to compensate for it. You're probably right about the "in control-ness." Still, I think it matters. The point of a debate round is that the person who debated better in that round should win, for any definition of "better debating" (I'm open to a re-framing of the round and the ballot, but I think this one is general enough as to be fairly uncontroversial). That's why theory debates tend to consider reciprocity as the biggest impact to fairness in the status quo. This accepted, I think it becomes clear why side bias is bad: it gives one debater an advantage they don't deserve, and (in a non-ableist way) handicaps the other. You might say education outweighs, but empirically the "challenge" of being aff leads to tricks, not deeper exploration of substance, so I don't believe there's much of an educational impact either way. On your second point, I agree it seems flawed intuitively, and I think I may know why: First, debaters are suddenly competitive in rounds they weren't before not because they've gotten better or do more work – it seems like charity to me, and I'm not sure how educational that would be. Second, I think there's a semantic problem that's obscuring things a bit: there's a difference between substance-hard, where you're arguing in depth about complex philosophical or topical problems in round with someone at the same level as, or better than, you, and burden-hard, where the structure of the activity makes achieving the victory condition more difficult. Substance-hard rounds, I think, provide the most education, and are the most interesting to watch, judge and participate in (assuming it's not a face crush). Side bias makes rounds burden-harder, not substance-harder, which means that debaters are basically focused on moving around the victory condition to compensate (AFC, neg theory must be drop the argument, reasonability, parametrics good) to compensate, so debaters aren't learning about the topic. I think side bias exacerbates that problem by making it unstrategic for affs to even contemplate substance-hard rounds, since the neg can always spread them out on any key issue, whereas a level playing field makes those debates more winnable for affs. Regardless, though,we have side bias now, and I've not seen any examples of the kinds of debaters who go 1-5 or 0-6 being more competitive because of it.
  9. I think you have the right idea in general, but there are a couple of issues I see. Elims. In elimination rounds, the side bias gives the debater who flips neg a greater chance of winning, and the single-elimination mechanism means that switch-side debate doesn't solve back like it does in prelims, and means that the better, more prepared debater doesn't win I don't think you're right about the benefits of side bias. I think it encourages tricks, surprise and other compensatory mechanisms that do nothing to actually enhance the educational debate. In national-circuit LD (where the problem of side bias in LD is most prevalent) it's led to abusive paragraph theory, AFC (for policy debaters: In LD, the "framework" in question refers to the ethical framework for the round (util, deont, naturalism, etc.) and all kinds of tricks that do nothing for the educational value of the activity. I think the point of side bias is that it takes the debaters out of control. A debater is starting from a disadvantage when the begin, so external factors are deciding if they win or lose. My thoughts are a little jumbled right now, so I might come back with some later thoughts soon
  10. Is the Cap K generally run as postfiat or prefiat? What kinds of impacts would you have to be making in order to go either way?
  11. https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/results/round_results.mhtml?tourn_id=1518&round_id=61539 Why was Northwestern LV vs Wake BM a seven judge panel while the rest of the rounds were 5 judges? did they both just strike the same two?
  12. As an LD-er, "the aff has infinite prep time" argument is a ) alive and well on the national circuit, and b ) makes sense given that there isn't a disclosure norm in LD (or at best a widely inconsistent one), so there's a huge prep skew no matter what. I'm not sure how much this matters in other regions though, since there are a variety of factors that make the circuit unique - if you want me to go in to more detail, I'd be happy to.
  13. Jon Bruschke published a very thorough answer to this question in his really long manual for debate tabulation (Warning: Word Document):
×
×
  • Create New...