Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ThomasDB8

  1. I usually do something like this: Straight through - 3 min Pick a vowel - 2 min Backwards - 3 min Straight through - 5 min Pick a one syllabal "dog" for instance - 2 min Pen in mouth - 3 min Pick a two syllabal word "chicken" for instance - 2 min Backwards - 3 min Straight through (pick a block for this one) - 8 min Part of speed drills is also building up endurance; remember that.
  2. Is it just me, or does it sound like Bostrom is writing using orwellian newspeak?
  3. I would stand on the side of it dying. The reason behind this is that the community seems to give a special status to flow debate. In order to be competitive on a national level it requires large amounts of money and countless hours of work as well as having the money or good fortune to have a coach who understands enough about debate to help debaters grow. This creates a barrier between those with opportunity and those without it. Of course large nat circuit schools usually have a lot of money, but what about the schools that we have never heard of? What about the schools that can't attend those tournaments? They will probably stay on local circuits with majority lay debate and it will lead to the death of debate in its current form across the country aside from the elite few who can afford to continue competing on a national level.
  4. Rnivium is partially correct in saying that a disad can be something along the lines of an impact turn to the aff, however if you examine what a disad is and its structure then it becomes apparent that "policy-esque" disads can frame the majority of argumentation that uses this structure. You can very easily put disads on the framework debate, specifically on their method, in order to provide some kind of, well, disadvantage to voting for them while going for another framing argument that is separate from the da such as framing. An example of this would be something occular-centrism as a da in order to create offense on accessibility against a hist. mat. aff that uses paintings whilst still going for a counter advocacy. This serves as a kind of offense and impact mitigation towards the opponents framework while still allowing you to go for your own arguments that are in an entirely different vein than the da is from. Edited for depth: I also think that this is a good place to start analysis on no linking policy da's. Of course that line of argumentation should be much more nuanced, warranted, and justified if something such as spiking out of da's based on method is occurring. Like TheZodiacKiller said, "if you can't defend why x is bad, you shouldn't read an aff about x being bad."
  5. I agree that that is what it is, but I also like the examples that are listed and how it is explained. I'll have to look into it more. Also, I didn't immediately make the connection to correlation and causation. Thanks for pointing that out!
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem Is there any practical application to this in the context of doing something like disproving disads or k's? I was thinking that it could be used to answer something like politics, where a candidates polling numbers dropped, but attributing that to something that is in the context of domestic surveillance is wrong because even though it is true that the numbers dropped and surveillance was being discussed by that candidate, it doesn't mean that curtailing domestic surveillance would be the cause of their polls dropping, and would rather just be an occurance that happened afterwards.
  7. Yes, the debate culture on our circuit is elitist. I have come across several examples. For one, the idea that "I compete on the circuit" is an invalid idea. For the most part, the progressive tournaments in our region have about the same levels of competition as nat circuit tournaments. This is a side of effect of kansas having the largest number of policy debaters out of any state. The drive to get better is what breeds this because even though we can only travel so far, there is still a high level of competition in the region. The second example would be some of the judges. There are people who say 'no plan no points no win' and will unfairly evaluate critical positions. This is symptomatic of a small cult that exists in the region of policy debaters whom are exclusionary towards other methods of debate for a variety of reasons. At the end of the day, the region in which we compete is elitist not only for argument style, but also because of the levels of wealth that they have sunk into creating a false perception of what it means to compete. This pedagogy of wealth is definately a problem. Edit: And your analysis on coaching is correct. There are certain schools who think they are better than other schools because of this. Frankly, I think that coaching is a good thing, but the problem is when they start creating so much evidence for their debaters that they don't understand the argument and only use it in order to get a win because other teams won't have evidence against it. I mean, sure if you have a unique position that you research yourself, that is fine, but when you just run 12 off and expect the other team to not have evidence against one of your offs then that is just straight up avoiding clash.
  8. Naw, Anti-Oedipus will be much easier conceptually.
  9. Critical debate is something that is done on a more broad level than just reading pomo shit in round. It is something that asks us to evaluate the underlying assumptions behind an argument or line of reasoning. It is not a bad thing that we are moving towards a more critical style because there are plenty of things that are just straight up bad about a lot of the assumptions that we make. As to spreading, this is a matter of personal preference. Yeah, it helps a ton if you spread, but until you reach the highest levels of competition, solid argumentation will still go a long ways towards winning and speaks. Also, when you do reach a high level of argumentation you can win without spreading if you know what to go for. What we should realize is that just because we call an argument something that doesn't make it mutually exclusive to the characteristics of other arguments, ie: why can't you call a DA a K? At the end of the day the name of the activity shouldn't matter. Every activity is a combination of logic and persuasiveness. You do a lot of talking about exclusion and leaving more traditional communities in the dust, but doesn't necessarily mean that 'progressive' debate is bad. What I see in terms of 'progressive' debate are debaters who care enough about the activity to go out and find new arguments and to learn that source material and become well versed in it in order to be articulate and persuasive as well as to learn how to apply it in many different contexts. Too many times I have called an argument something that it is not and the other team had no idea what was happening. This is because we get to caught up in what things are 'supposed to be' because of the names that we give them. Different 'forms' of debate can still use the same arguments but in different fashion from congress being pretty much one hugh ie to ld's long framework debates to PFD's empty banter (being almost nothing but persuasiveness), policy is just a hard core community that has the time constraints to piece together a more complete argument. That doesn't mean that other forms of debate can't learn from policy. All it means is that the arguments will be mobilized in different ways. tl;dr What is progressive debate? -> Putting in work to find new arguments and there is no reason why those arguments or permutations of them are bad until they have been beaten in round and empirically disproven. Life is becoming and so is debate. Arthur Schopenhauer 1897 ‘The Emptiness of Existence’ in Essays of Schopenhauer https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter4.html Our existence is based solely on the ever-fleeting present. Essentially, therefore, it has to take the form of continual motion without there ever being any possibility of our finding the rest after which we are always striving. It is the same as a man running downhill, who falls if he tries to stop, and it is only by his continuing to run on that he keeps on his legs; it is like a pole balanced on one’s finger-tips, or like a planet that would fall into its sun as soon as it stopped hurrying onwards. Hence unrest is the type of existence. In a world like this, where there is no kind of stability, no possibility of anything lasting, but where everything is thrown into a restless whirlpool of change, where everything hurries on, flies, and is maintained in the balance by a continual advancing and moving, it is impossible to imagine happiness. It cannot dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is all that takes place. First of all, no man is happy; he strives his whole life long after imaginary happiness, which he seldom attains, and if he does, then it is only to be disillusioned; and as a rule he is shipwrecked in the end and enters the harbour dismasted. Then it is all the same whether he has been happy or unhappy in a life which was made up of a merely ever-changing present and is now at an end. You don't have to view debate as ever changing if you view it as the nature of the activity is to find the best arguments. Just take debate as it exists and found yourself on solid logic and you shall prevail comrade.
  10. No. It's just a circle jerk and extremely homogenous. Edit: You do realize that down voting just kind of proves my point right?
  11. Best team: ONW DS Squad: BVN Coach: Bonet Lay: Katy Dorrell Aff: Manhattan M(n/a) Neg: Manhattan M(n/a) Prettiest speaker: Dorean Debose III Fastest: James Wu Most annoying: not answering this Best 1A: Dominika Best 2A: Birzer Best 1N: Julian Kuffour Best 2N: Nick Schroder Most likely to do well next year: SMNW KO; ON DW; Judge: Scott Elliot Underrated team: SMNW OT Best K debater: Lily Ottinger/Nate McClendon PTX debater: This shouldn't be an argument. T debater: Nick Schroder Most likely NDT champ: Michigan KM Nicest debater: Julian Kuffour Best Evidence: Doesn't Exist Best argument: Baudrillard Worst argument: Condo Good Best K: Schizo Cap Best aff: Native Best excuse for losing: I dropped the perm Best tournament for hanging out: State 2 Speaker Best human being: We all objectively bad.
  12. Neg flex should be the the area where your standards work is focused. Also, you should be doing work on proving either 1) how their interp for how many condo you get is arbitrary or 2) how condo bad is really bad for negative flex and skews the debate in favor of the aff who gets infinite prep time. This will allow you to win the interp debate which will win you the entire condo debate.
  13. ThomasDB8

    Time Cube Kritik

    You the real MVP. Good work on spreading the cubic word fam. Keep it up.
  14. ThomasDB8

    Reps Kritik?

    KKK confirmed to be their own race. This is news to me.
  15. Yeah. Here in Kansas we aren't allowed to have email chains either cause the whole wifi thing. Usually we just ask the other team if they want to do an email chain anyways granted we have the judges for it. It's nice when even the rules of a game are debatable
  16. This is exactly why email chains need to be standard at every tournament.
  17. One Punch Man key to Japanese heg--empirically proven solves all universal threats. http://www.hulu.com/watch/882919#i0,p10,d0
  18. Any one seen it? It's pretty g8.
  19. Order is 2 off then case. Open for cross. ALSO-we need judges so anyone who wants to may. 1nc v Juan (vdebate).docx
  20. What lens do you view the 1ac through? Util? What is the internal link between the aff and disease? Why have we not seen the Royal impacts from previous recessions? Why does plan in particular spur global econ growth? How does the plan text result in a reduction in surveillance? ALSO; does 3k constructive/1600 rebuttals work for you?
  21. Will someone tell me what the worm is and link some articles to it? I can't find anything on the google search.
  • Create New...