Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Okay

About Trevelan

  • Rank
  1. I have been coaching for several years now and every once in a while I'll get a talented debater that shows promise and ends up with a cocky attitude. The problem is that once they are on the high horse, instructing them becomes almost impossible. They fight my lectures and advice and end up learning absolutely nothing. Being a former debater I have solved this in the past by putting them in their "place" during a practice round but it becomes a 50/50 shot between them correcting their attitude and quitting. My current top ranked debater now occupies a seat on a very high horse and because of this has shown no improvement at all. With this particular case it becomes even more difficult due to the debater being fragile (insecurity wise) and I have gotten the silent treatment many times so far this year and the season is barely 4 months in. What do I do? What are my option? Please help...I am officially out of ideas and quite lost.
  2. Hi everyone!!! I was wondering if anybody knows of any good sites that have video lectures on advanced debate arguments, specifically theory, or if anybody has any good links. I've been searching for some but haven't found many other than what's on YouTube. maybe I'm just searching wrong but any help would be appreciated! Also FW too!! thanks, trev
  3. sorry cap ks are a dime a dozen
  4. i'm looking for good neoliberalism k's doesnt matter if they're old and any back files on neoliberalism. Have massive theory to trade on all topics and arguements!!!!
  5. Trevelan

    Multiple Ks

    just to make it simple and not worry about teams running extremely bad contradiction arguements on you, set up multi-world theory block that you can read after the k's in the 1nc.......it works, i use too run three k's standard.
  6. any defs or explainations would be helpful....the first def i ever heard was from my coach yrs ago and it was, "neoliberalism is capitalism on steriods" i dont think he actually ment it so much but rather to explain me used tht.
  7. have a class kids want to debate but dont read anything already got wooped at tourneys usually this kick starts their "i wanna do better drives" not working, never had this problem before seem like they dont mind losing NEED NEW STRATEGY---HELP???!!!
  8. do debater running critical affs gain in round solvency just by talking about a certain problem in the round or is there something more to it? is there another way to gain in-round solvency? and if its just the former how does talking about problems/issues solve anything???
  9. ya one of the biggest problem i'm having is no specific link arguements against my theory. what if i made it a point in it that pretty much argue the the negs link to my case is generic and weak and there is no evidence that goes from my plan passing to their impact actually happening something like requiring them to have evidence that my specific plan will cause nuke war. how do i make that argue that their assumption isnt valid sort of speak? maybe a part it can be that generic links prove nothing?
  10. wondering why there are still judges that think the neg is supposed to have a plan and solvency...so much for those judge seminars!!

  11. if would be extremely helpful if someone could explain neoliberalism to me or direct me to any good books, videos or lectures on it? also how do you link the neolib K to cases that solve for global warming or natives and also critical cases( most commonly racism)? thanks
  12. so my team started making their own theory and while its not that bad, there is much to be improved on. the general view is that impacts like nuke war and extinction are not real world, bad for debate and that they cant really prove that aff will cause them(overblown& exagerrated). does anyone know of any authors or cards that prove this point or how to make this real world theory more successful. maybe even a structure of how a competitive theory should look like and parts should it argue as in roleplaying, education, logic, time skew, abuse and so forth? our set up is as follows: 1)interpretation: real world arguements best for debate 2) role playing- debaters suppose to be learning how laws actually get passed 3) education - crazy impacts stop as from learning about the harms and how to solve them in the real world 4competing frame works bad-generic 5)limits- limiting the debate to real world possiblity increase education & prepares debater for their future 6)logic-generic
  13. hmmm....ok i see i'll check to see which one the round fell into thanks!
  14. so the affs arguement was theory on dbs, interesting(i.e my debaters don't explain things well) thanks, i will definately put this to good use as soon as i get the flows
  15. ok so one of my team just lost a round because of a double bind. now usually its a neg strat but Mind you they were neg and the arguement attacked their K alt. has anybody ever heard of this and if so whats the proper way of defending against it. The K was neolib the alt to reject.. and no i'm not at the tourney so notes ar blurry.... thanks for any help.
  • Create New...