Jump to content

blujackolantern

Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About blujackolantern

  • Rank
    Novice

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jack Booth
  • School
    Mill Valley High School
  1. blujackolantern

    Biopower K

    Yeah, I was going to recommend the same thing in regards to the one on open evidence cuz I was in that lab. Hi Emma/Zaida, it's Jackson from lab. Yeah, I think biopower args tend to flow more aff, although you may be able to create a better one for neg if you have some really good state bad stuff.
  2. blujackolantern

    Biopower K

    When you say running the biopower K, are you talking about cutting your own? Using one that your coach provided or is in your team's backfiles? Or running one from openevidence?
  3. O.K. So lets say lay judge vs. college judge, for which should I run a) topicality b ) counterplan c)impact calc d) disads e) critiques
  4. My first tournament I went in open. I did average (3-2 record) The second tournament my coach put me in novice because there was no room in open. But yes, I would generally like to go in open whenever possible.
  5. Well I thought since it was the last round and it was basically deciding who would get first place (my partner and I had best speaks in the tournament), that the judge would know what was going on. Even then, I explained the basics of counterplans. As it turned out, we had an emergency judge because the judge that was supposed to judge us didn't show up. This was the explanation I used for the counterplan: For the benefit of the affirmative team and the judge I'm going to explain how a counter-plan works. In policy debate, the resolution divides the terrain of argument between the affirmative and negative team. The affirmative team defends the resolution, while the negative may defend anything that is not the resolution. Often times the negative will defend the status quo. However, the negative may also bring up a counter-plan to defend. The negative team can choose to defend the counter-plan and/or the status quo. Defending both the counter-plan and the status quo makes the plan a conditional counter-plan. This means that the judges can vote for the affirmative plan, the counter-plan, or the status quo, with a vote for either the counter-plan or the status quo being a vote for the negative team. When a negative team defends only a counter-plan and not the status quo, their counter-plan is unconditional. This means that the judge may only vote for either the affirmative plan or the counter-plan. This counter-plan is conditional, meaning that the a vote for either it or the status quo is a vote for the negative team. A legitimate counter-plan has to meet three requirements: it must be nontopical; it must be competitive with the Affirmative plan, meaning that both plan and counter-plan cannot or should not exist at the same time; and it must be superior to the Affirmative plan, producing greater advantages overall. Now that I've reaffirmed the ground rules for a counter-plan, I will move on to our plan.
  6. For clarification, the reason the judge got offended was because one of our team members asked the judge how long they had judged and what experience they had had judging. But then our coach freaked out when she saw the ballots (this happened to that particular team more than once), and told us we shouldn't ask for paradigms anymore. I didn't think the CP we had was very complicated. It was a Venezuela case and the counterplan was just a perm of the aff plan but with Canada. (read cards about how canada solves better, venezuela more willing to trade with canada, etc.)
  7. I don't know about debate in your region but every debate at every debate I've gone to, every team goes up to the judge and says "thank you for judging." and shakes his/her hand. Our debate coach also says that this is good manners.
  8. Last weekend I went to my 2nd tournament. (First novice tournament, I went to my first tournament open). My partner and I got 3rd place. We won our first four rounds easily, but the 5th round was a little more difficult. To add on to our arguments, I decided to run a conditional counterplan. I explained to the judge and opposing team how a counterplan worked as did my partner at the beginning of every one of our speeches. (Long explanation first speech, couple sentences every speech after). I thought we had it in the bag. Then I shook the affirmative team's hand and went to go shake the hand of the judge. He said to me "This was my first time judging and I really didn't know what was going on." At that point my heart sank. We ended up losing the round. He put two reason on the ballot. a) Because in their last rebuttal, the aff team said that our counterplan wasn't a legitimate counterplan because it was nontopical and because of an argument about China (which was a new argument that they brought up in their last rebuttal). I really enjoy kritiks and counterplans. I have been told numerous times by my debate coach to never run a kritik in a novice tournament. She also told me if I ran a counterplan I would have to explain it in a way that would make sense to the judge. Basically, my question is this: Is there anyway I can run a kritik or counterplan at a novice tournament that would make sense to a lay judge? (College judges are a little different). Also, would a judge find it offensive if I asked them their paradigm or if they liked kritiks/counterplans? I ask this question because one of our teams at that tournament because a judge felt insulted by them.
×
×
  • Create New...