Jump to content

CodyGustafson

Member
  • Content Count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by CodyGustafson

  1. You don't talk about X, we should talk about X, you not talking about X is erasing discussion of X
  2. In a podcast interview that was done w/ Frank B. WIlderson III stated their views on the matter. They had said that *in theory* there was no issue w/ white people advocating the positions that authors think we should advocate. That being said, they also continued to say that they are not sure why a white person would want to advocate for them. Why would a white person want to advocate for an end to civil society if that included ending themselves? --> see podcast here: https://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/michigan-k-lab-podcast-afro-pessimism/ In the context of anti-blackness studies and model minority studies in debate, I would take a look at Centennial KK's wiki from back in the day (http://hspolicy13.debatecoaches.org/bin/Centennial+MD/Koo-Koo+Neg.htm) (or any Centennial wiki since 2013 for that matter) and see how they are reading in within the confines of debate. There are also tons of videos on youtube of them debating, if you wanted to see the actual performance of them debating. Edit: I really think that this whole debate about whether or not white people should be allowed to read the position is summed up by a Tamara Nopper article (http://racetraitor.org/nopper.html). Definitely worth the read.
  3. When teaching novices Ks, a lot of coaches boil it down to your point, a disad and a CP. While the basis of the statement are true and it's worth pointing out (to try to simplify the basis premise of a K so novices don't get too confused and have a simple understanding to come back to and expand on), it's not worth translating into actual learning of the K past understanding the structure. The critique questions the actions, assumptions, justification, etc... of the affirmative/discourse. The disadvantage is a negative implication based on the outcome of the aff. A disadvantage also usually doesn't assume the burdens, as the Bennett article points out. To answer your question about it being a lazy disad, that couldn't be more far from the truth. The argument that the K is making is that the aff/discourse is flawed for X reason. For instance, a security critique's UQ would be like "securitization exists in the squo" which is obviously the case, so it wouldn't actually do anything for the debate. For a disad, the UQ is more important because it shows that the squo is trending towards/away from something. Also, adding a UQ aspect to the critique debate would allow teams to say things like "people in the squo are racist, so why does it matter if we are?" types of things which aren't good for debate at all. The counterplan and alternative are a little bit more similar that the disadvantage and link/impact for a K. The biggest difference is that the CP is an alternative policy option to the aff. The alternative is a course of action to overcome those flawed assumptions, etc... Another thing worth adding is that the CP often defend some sort of fiat, alternatives more often than not, although not always, don't defend any time of fiat. The alternative is an action that the debaters ought to deploy and endorse as a method to overcome X instead of a policy method to solve some sort of policy implications. This is also why I think the term "alt solvency" is confusing to some. The alt doesn't attempt to solve a problem, it attempts to overcome the problem, whereas policy actions attempt to solve the problem.
  4. Short answer: flowing on your computer is better if you are judging or watching a round because you are very rarely having to switch between windows while judging/watching. When you are debating, you are having to look at docs and your flows often, which makes it harder to do both on a computer and you will waste time switching back-and-forth with windows. All of Rnivium reason's above are true and the longer answer. I can also attest to the computer crashing thing. I was judging octs at Grapevine and my laptop crashed and with it so did my flows in the 2nc. I flowed the 2nc-on on paper and was able to get my computer set back up during prep before the 2ar so I had to go back and reference each flows to make a decision, including speech docs to make a decision, which was exhausting and time-consuming. If I had been debating and that happened to me, it would've been GG.
  5. Aye, the name of the game in the 1nc is to give you enough in the block to eventually win you the round. Debates are won and lost in the 1ar, reading the links all upfront in the 1nc makes it harder to generate offensive ways to beat the 1ar in the block. The time tradeoff that you're doing for the 1nc/2ar isn't really doing you any good, because they still have an eight minute speech, plus they can play catch-up in the 1ar; reading those links (say three of them) in the block means that the 1ar is having to make some massive tradeoffs elsewhere.
  6. The only ptx ev you will ever need. http://genius.com/Kanye-west-politics-is-dead-oct-28-interview-annotated
  7. Haven't done it personally, but with the staff they have lined up it is definitely a great program to look into doing if you can, especially to couple w/ a summer institute. Had a friend who did it and did UTNIF last year and they plan to do the same this year too and they really felt like it was well worth the monies.
  8. ^^this But, if there was any doubt about wanting to transition away from K-heavy debate I would choose the AM lab. T-Mac is one of the best coaches in Texas for sure. My junior year was my school's first year to really branch outside of local, more traditional-style debate as we began to compete at more competitive and progressive regional tournaments around the DFW area and T-Mac was actually one of my favorite judges to have during that transition because of just how amazing her knowledge of debate is and her RFDs were always super helpful. Even if you don't chose to go that route, I would still spend a little bit of time picking her mind about debate.
  9. See: https://www.cross-x.com/topic/30926-negation-theory/
  10. Mirroring above posts -- bid levels are based (to my knowledge) on a couple of factors. First, sheer number of teams that attend, second is the number of states that are represented. Third, is the elim that the tournament breaks to, ToC requires there be at least one elim before the bid is awarded, meaning you can't break right to a bid. Third is they *attempt* to do it based on regional location to try to allow schools the best opportunity to pick up bids from around the nation, but then you also have states like Texas that have six bid tournaments, so it doesn't always come out that way.
  11. It is supposed to work the same way as a NSDA and in most districts it does. Some districts, however, have a bid-type system where schools can bid on different slots for events and then pick a team to go. For instance, one school can take two policy sports and another can take an oratory spot, the third policy spot, then the DI spot, this is usually for the districts that are less-represented. Also, there is NDCA, which has two different ways to qualify. The first method is that each member school gets to send one team to the national tournament just by being a member school. The second way is to get 500 points from any five tournaments using the points formula (http://www.debatecoaches.org/tournament-rules-procedures/) edit: there are also the Woodward and St. Mark's novice national championships, if you were to consider those as well.
  12. Can confirm, I had posted on another thread that I had not exhibited any issues, but that was while I was running Word 2013. I am having the same issue that you are having with the underlining. My temporary solution is just to highlight then press the f9 key as I go. It's not nearly as time efficient, but you gotta do something. Edit: Just got an email back from Arron Hardy: "This is a known bug with Word 2016 - I've gotten one or two other reports of this happening to others as well. Unfortunately, I don't yet have a workaround, but I'll be working on a full set of bug fixes and compatibility upgrades for Word 2016 over the summer, so I'm hopeful that I will find a solution relatively soon."
  13. My understanding of the cap/neloib dichotomy is that capitalism is an economic system whereas neoliberalism is the structure that allows capitalism to spread and grow. Capitalism defines more conservative forms of economics, thinks like free-market, profit drive, etc.. Neoliberlaism is the modern structures of capitalism's branches for things like neo-colonial expansion, resource exploitation, country developments, etc., things that necessitate the constant spread of capitalism to keep the system alive. That's why the general consensus for most hs debaters tends to be a domestic topic means you call your cap K cap and a foreign topic you call your cap K neolib, which is neither here nor there. Then again, in the end, the difference doesn't really matter. Most authors aren't going to have any sort of different method/thesis about one as opposed to the other.
  14. So, are you trying to frame the round like big-stick affs are good?
  15. Well, kinda sorta combine them. Say that the standard is ground, do your analysis/impact work on ground, then make any additional args you may need/want to make against their ground args, then move on to the next standard. That keeps it quicker and easier to flow. Then, do any additional LBL you may have to do at the bottom. Flow it at the top of the K sheet, unless there is/going to be enough arguments on the flow that you just know you're going to need a whole new sheet for it. I would say flow f/w with the same method you would flow a K overview, don't use a new sheet unless you just know it's going to be a huge part of the debate in the end (most of the time f/w isn't)
  16. What issues are you referencing? I haven't experienced any either, but I may have overlooked something ??
  17. It's just speculation, but I know a lot of hs AP/IB tests are this week. May have something to do with that.
  18. if you think that 1) anti-blackness isn't potent in China or 2) that US engagement w/ Asian countries isn't rooted in anit-blackness then you're wrong.
  19. Monica is going to post a link in the HS Policy Debate group -- I will edit this post w/ the link whenever it becomes available. Edit: Link for stream: Link for ToC Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10kHOWAejRCxnOnC_0QHvl2haIkYx5V7OprN4XvKCPmE/edit#gid=867746803
  20. Ricardo is not going to be streaming the rounds, the ToC wasn't going to pay him to do it and he just was unable to do it this year. Monica said they will pick up some streams for policy, but will be mostly-centered on debates featuring people of color. Sarah Robinson also said they will be streaming some rounds, with the help of some of Ricardo's equipment. I believe the discussion was that one of their streams will be policy, one for LD, and two for PFD (but may be wrong on that, idk).
  21. In short, there are still going to be bunches of links because most of the EE affs are going to have some sort of China rise impact anyway. Also, you may look into how US ee is more of a balancing strategy to limit China's rise (see http://carnegieendowment.org/email/Asia/img/AsiaPolicy18_Ford_July2014.pdf) Here is one that I just managed to come across in a brief search. AlisonPotter -- Pan EE Link.docx
  22. This is a pretty vague question imo. Seems like most (if not all) Ks that are read in heavily have some sort of falsifiable truth to them, if not, then you wouldn't be able to garner any sort of thesis to the argument without sounding completely silly. So, I guess, what does it mean to "believe in a K/author"? If it is which ones I think are true, I think *almost all* of them are believable. If you're asking which ones shape the way I live my every day life/which ones would I be an activist for, I think that the easiest ones would be the literature based in identity, since those seem to be the ones that most shape reality. Criticisms on IR like most of your security literature, such as Pan, are also very intriguing to me. But, I don't think there is a single K that I can say I 100% advocate the same thing as x author.
  23. I would always err towards the side of making them up in round. Sure, your 1ar overview for your aff is essentially going to be the same thing every round, but it should be more geared towards the round specifically. You shouldn't be reading the exact same overview for your aff in an XO and ptx debate that you would against Natives.
×
×
  • Create New...