Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sikcool

  • Rank
  1. No I know what a perm is, I'm just really confused by what "perm do the alt" means. Shouldn't it be "perm do the plan and alt", or is doing the plan implied when you say "perm do the alt"?
  2. This is my last round evaluation question and it has 3 parts. 1. How do you do good impact calculus. I mean if you have an aff with an econ advantage that leads to NW and a politics DA that leads to NW, how do you compare them effectively? I haven't really seen a good impact calculus debate, so far I've seen just the novice "our timeframe is now, probability is 100, and magnitude is extinction". 2. When plans say they fund through general means, what exactly does that mean? Where is the money coming from? 3. In higher level debate rounds, when negs run Ks and CPs I've heard the aff respond with some weird perms like "perm do the alt" and "perm do the aff". I don't understand these? How do you perm 1 thing? What exactly do these mean?
  3. So I've been reading around about cp's and was wondering what the general consensus in today's debate community is about cp having to be topical or not. Or does it even matter anymore? Additionally, I have been looking into presumption and have chosen to follow the idea that if the negative introduces a cp into the round then they lose presumption and the aff gains it since the aff has been around longer/more familiar. My question is, is it okay to vote aff on presumption if the neg presents a CP?
  4. But let's say that the negative extends everything (even does impact calc) on the DA expect the link, they basically make no link story past the 1NC. If the aff does a good job on extending case then is it an aff ballot?
  5. What is the best way to extend arguments? Let's say the neg runs a DA with your usual Uniqueness, Link, IL, and Impact. If the aff doesn't answer this (or even if they do) what is the most efficient, well-organized, and thorough way of extending the parts of the DA? Should you just go down the link and say "extend uniquess <insert summary of card>, next extend the link <insert summary of card>, ...."
  6. Okay, what about on the other end of the spectrum where the aff says something like "racism good" and the neg just doesn't make any good arguments. In that case, is it still the hardline policy of "do not evaluate arguments that weren't made" resulting in an aff ballot or can I let my own opinion come into play here and vote up the neg?
  7. So I have not seen this tactic used in very many rounds but why doesn't the negative read like 2 off in the 1NC then read like 8 DAs in the 2NC and have the 1NR cover the 2 off from the 1NC? This would put so much pressure on the 1AR. How do they respond effectively? Alternatively, why doesn't the aff just read a completely new case in the 2AC? It is still a constructive
  8. Is it possible to disregard certain arguments in a debate round even if the other team drops it? Let's say that the negative runs T and in the 1NR the neg says "the aff has to increase economic engagement and not trade which is what they do". The obvious answer to this argument is that trade is economic engagement but let's say the aff doesn't make that simple argument. Should you evaluate it? As a judge, are you supposed to be convinced of particular arguments before you can vote on them or is it more of a game where you just have to evaluate where the pieces are on the board? For the sake of argumentation, let's say that the neg goes for T in the 2NR and makes that argument. And the aff responds pretty poorly.
  9. I need to understand T fully. What is a good T debate (how do you argue the standards and counter standards well)? What exactly is reasonability (I know it means you're trying to say you're reasonably topical but how do you measure that)? What does it mean to say you default to competing interpretations? Are RVIs a good thing? If so, when should they be placed?
  10. So there are 3 situations then: 1) The aff answers T in the 2AC but drops case. Result: neg ballot 2) The aff answers T in the 2AC and 1AR and only drops case in the 1AR. Result: ?? 3) The answers T in the 2AC/1AR/2AR and only drops case in the 2AR. Result: Aff ballot?? Why? This is all assuming the aff answers T sufficiently thereby winning on that part of the flow
  11. I have been watching a lot of rounds in preparation for judging next season. I have compiled a list of questions that I have that a judge would need to answer for him/herself to choose the winner. I'll be posting each question individually after I get a good answer for one. So the first question I have is: What happens if the negative reads some argument(s), let's say just a T, and the affirmative effectively answers the T however they spent all their speech time on it thereby forgetting to extend their case advantages/solvency/etc. Who wins the round? Is it the aff because of a risk of advantages even though they weren't extended but on the flip side they weren't contested by the neg? Or is it the neg on presumption?
  12. In a particular round the negative read 5 off, one of those offs being a k. The 2AC addressed everything but forgot the K. Assuming neg extends the K arguments all the way through and explains it, does that mean they automatically win despite any attempt made by the 1AR and 2AR to attack it since it would be considered new arguments?
  • Create New...