Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About bammytess

  • Rank
  • Birthday March 6

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Biography
    High school circuit LD-er
    College NFA-LDer
  • Occupation
  1. Hi everyone, I've decided that I'm going to record every LD round I can where I get permission to record at TOC tournaments in order to make debate more accessible to everyone! I'm in the middle of / close to finishing uploading the videos from Grapevine. Here's a link to the channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPT9YpL7iYoCJEgqBFEqV4g
  2. I do LD since I work better by myself, I don't have the attention span for a CX round, CX is dying in my city, and because I like LD more. (multiple topics a year means I get more chances of learning more / not sucking 100% of the time) People at my school like policy (but don't do it bc coach says no) because the rounds are longer and they like how developed the argumentation gets, they like working in teams, they like the one topic a year, and they like how small it is here. You should tell them about both events, who could be a potential partner, what you think is objectively easier in your area, what you have better coaching for, and show maybe a lay round for both. (look on NSDA)
  3. bammytess

    Ableism lit

    I've read a few things w/ ableism lit, but wanted to expand my knowledge base, does anyone have any suggestions? (I've read Abberley, Arkles, Goodley and Cole, Michalko, Roberts, Wolbring)
  4. What do you think reminded me about it?
  5. Nope, it was a K of how we have to protect men labled "Masculinity K"
  6. Reminds me of the masculinity K a kid in my lab wrote.
  7. I'm sorry that it seems I think condo is bad, I'm a strong believer in condo good, except with kritikal args, it's my opinion and I know others share the same. I'm also sorry that I'm acting like the alt is the only way to achieve framing, because I don't think that's true at all. In my opinion, a good K shouldn't achieve framing from the alt, but also a good K wouldn't need to kick the alt. I think the judgments you're making about me don't reflect what I believe in as a debater. Sorry aram, thanks for trying. <3
  8. A K is a discursive question, you can't just forget about it, either it matters or it doesn't if it doesn't you don't read it. There's other justifications for it, maybe it's only something said in college policy (the people I learned about it from), but it's definitely acceptable in LD. EDIT: I can't english
  9. If you're infront of a kritikal / performance judge, when you kick any part of a K it's a performantive double turn, and if your opponent calls you out on it 9 times out of 10 they'll vote off of that.
  10. If you have any access to any databases like jstor or lexus nexus, you can probably ask your coach for a login. They have some good articles. Like rigbert said, google scholar is good as well, you'll get a different outcome / papers. Also if you get briefs, going back to the articles they cut and cutting them for your self is an easy strat so you can understand where the cards come from and stuff.
  11. please no one run abortion. I understand there's ground for it, but please no.
  12. If you're unclear on anything or have further questions, feel free to ask!
  13. Sorry I'm late to this party, I'm not sure if anyone's answered all of your questions (but I'm going to go ahead and answer.) 1. This is probably not the answer you're looking for, but it depends on the round, also who your judge is. One of my lab leaders said that the 1AR should be all about the 2AR. If you have a messy round, clear it up and show where you're winning, if it's a pretty clear round you can do a little line by line on the things your opponent's have a risk of offense on. You'll probably want to touch on framing, and you may want to have an overview of the round, and how it's going to break down and where your judges are voting. 2. "Tell them what you're going to say, say it, and tell them why you said it" In the overview you could say something like "The ROTB is the highest framing mechanism, and you don't link into it (but i'll get there soon)" So you can say it but I wouldn't put the warrants in the overview, unless the ROTB is really important to the round, then I would do an overview of framing, and talk about how their framework (if they have one) is silly and bad and your ROTB is great and how they don't link into it, and you're doing the better job doing whatever you have to do. 3. If it's 1-off K, do you mean the 1-off is the K? (I'm going to assume yes, because I didn't see anything about another off case.) If they claim that their K is the highest level of the round, then you'll want to put as much offense on that K, but if they put a little offense on the AC, touch on that but don't spend too long. After you have put a couple of perms and either a no link or an impact turn, you may have time to extend the substance in the AC and how it's important because you're winning on substance and the K. 4. If you're meeting their ROTB and they don't provide a framework (V & V/C), there's an argument to be made that you're meeting what the ballot signifies (and doing better than your opponent) and that you're meeting your framework which is how both of y'all have to use to view the substantive part of the round / the topical debate. You could also put reasons as to the only way we know the neg ROTB is good is through your framing (but that's only in specific ethical frameworks) 5. CA Snark's answer
  • Create New...