Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About TheBigDA

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  1. What alt causes would you go for? I find that most cases can swing that they solve alt causes to warming too (or at least argue partial solvency from the aff). I feel as though the "too far along to solve arg" preempts this. Also thanks Vman, pretty good block!
  2. So climate change is real. Sorry, but reality.This being the case, my teams are having trouble winning against climate change Affs on the case debate. I'm trying to put together a decent block that says climate change is too far along to solve. I have a lot of evidence but I'm lacking warrants that I find truly defensible. Anybody have a couple decent cards they could throw my way?
  3. But you see the federal surveillance structure is like an onion..
  4. Well I can't speak about any other camps but I can tell you that ETBU is a great camp with coaches that know their stuff. I think its especially adept at taking kids that are already good and making them great. Plus it's cheap, making it a viable option for small schools which is good at a time when small school debate is dying.
  5. Does anyone have answers to Amusing Ourselves to Death? 1NC shell provided Amusing Public Discourse Kritik.docx
  6. My normal strat is a mixture of speaking for others, circumvention, and Wilderson, but my UIL district is notorious for having strict STOCK and policy judges (many of which hate even CPs). Does anyone know a good strat against Islamophobia that would be persuasive to judges like this- ideally with an emphasis on DA/Solvency?
  7. So I'm an ok debater. I like policy. Hell, if I get a STOCKS judge I cheer. I can get by in general K debate but non traditional affs are where I start really struggling. I would very much like to run a satirical aff this year, (Johnathan Swift is my hero) but I have no idea of the structure or even how the round is supposed to go when running one. Can someone help me out by explaining or even better yet maybe send me an old backfile so I can see the 1AC structure/2AC generic blocks? Anything help is appreciated!
  8. I would agree with you, but only partially. The thing is that students will always be kids and therefore not have the power. If they are told by an adult not to run an argument because its dumb or worse- that they "can't"- that student is much less likely to run that argument. I know first hand (sorry for the anecdotes here), being told kritikal arguments were against UIL rules by a very conservative coach (bless her soul, she is the most wonderful woman I have ever met). Another time I ran "new in the 2" and new ev in rebuttals and was told by the judge I couldn't. At camp my teachers constantly beat down STOCKS and debate and at nationals I was screamed at for running a planked plan. As far as complicated argumentation that is over many debater's heads, I believe it is the educator's job to foster an atmosphere where students may develop their own arguments even if the are more simple. Instead some coaches encourage lazy debate by either writing debater's affs for them or giving them open ev because those arguments might be better than what the students could write themselves.
  9. I apologize for these instances of both ignorance and immaturity. Reading through the second thread I believe that it is fairly obvious I did not really even know what a K was. Although I have no excuses for these stupid or annoying things I said, I can say that I truly believe I have matured since this time. In addition, I do not quite understand the reason behind this post as it feels as though it comes from a personal anger. If this is the case and you feel as though I have either personally wronged you or another individual please feel free to PM so we may discuss the matter. Best regards
  10. My most recent Saturday tournament (Varsity CX at Paris North Lamar in East Texas) consisted of three debates in which neither competitors nor judges knew exactly what was going on. Why? Because every team I competed against read a complicated advocacy of which they could not explain paired with a RoB (Roll of the Ballot) framed specifically around their advocacy. The case debate was non-existent. My case was freaking drones. Now what is the problem with this? Its bad debate! If you can even call it debate. After one such round, I talked with my opponents. They told me they had been doing debate for three years (both were juniors) and that they did not understand what they had read- a psychoanalysis K. Confused, I asked why they had decided to run thee K, to which one replied "My coach said it would win, he talks about this type of stuff all the time but it goes a bit over our heads". And here we find the fault. Psychoanalysis is a complicated critical theory that is hard to grasp for even the most educated political scientists, philosophers, and physicians. So why, may I ask, do we put it in to the hands of high school students to discuss, debate, and overall butcher? My thesis is that winning has overshadowed education in what is supposed to be its one last stronghold. We write blocks and put them in to student's hands so that they win. Why? Why can we not prepare debaters to think? Teach students to respond to arguments in their way, in a logical way that makes sense to them? We must remember that it is our students who are supposed to be learning to form argumentation, not us. It seems that with the "Golden generation" of high school debaters growing up and coaching, they can't let go of the fact that its not about them anymore. This appears to be the case with judges as well. The fad of "doing work" has appeared. Filling gaps in argumentation with a judge's own knowledge or opinions is not the point of debate (YOU WILL ALWAYS BEAT THE CHILD YOU ARE JUDGING, don't worry-we know that. You don't have to prove it), a good educator should judge on whats given to them, no more and no less. Why do we tell our students they can't do something or that they must do something? "You must put uniqueness first in your disadvantage." "You can't run new arguments in the 2NC" "You must spread." "You can't spread" No, your regional biases and trends do not dictate what you MUST do in a debate round. The whole point of debate is to provide a structured round (speech length and order) while not limiting the student's creativity and argumentation i.e. if I can persuade the judge of it then I can do it. There are no rules in debate other than these (provided a few in certain circuits that dictate evidence rules and the like) and that is a good thing. It keeps debate what it is. Coaches and judges alike need to realize, debate is about the students and their education. Winning is a side-effect of good debates.
  11. I largely subscribe to more traditional style of debate (I prefer policy plans/advantages as compared to K debate) and many members of the debate community do not agree with me. Also, I'm kind of a troll
  • Create New...