Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by NickDB8

  1. My own paradigm - I will not be competing.




    - I'll evaluate whatever you throw in front of me

    - Tech > Truth (Fun fact, I was one of like three people who voted for the Overview Effect in a demo debate at camp 2016 - S/O to Snowball who probably saw Brian Box act like it was a dumb decision once I announced it in front of the camp, but that shows that if it isn't handled well, I'll vote on it)

    - Impact calc is good - If you don't do it, I'll do it for you and will resort to util, and you may not like the result

    - Specific links are cool, but if you read a generic one in the 1NC and isolate more specific ones via analytics or cards in the block, that's fine. This applies to kritiks and disadvantages

    - Immediate drop on the lowest speaker points if one team defends discrimination. There is a difference between the neg reading a link to antiblackness and the aff reading a tag that says "racism good", and vise versa. Linking to a K is one thing, but actively defending discrimination is not ok. This is Cross-X.com, I shouldn't have to say this, but just in case.

    - You can be funny. I like memes. No penalty in not being funny, but I will be more generous on speaks if you are.

    - Case debate is good. Presumption is winnable.



    Read them, make sure I understand them. I can understand a lot of security, cap, other basic K's, queer theory, and that's about it. If you read something other than this, please break it down and explain what every part of the K means. Don't tell me to "Vote neg to embrace rhizomatic thought" without explaining what rhizomatic thought is and what it's implications are, or why I need to embrace it in the first place.



    I know this pretty well. Not a lot you have to do here that wasn't covered in "General".


    Some are cheating, but I'll vote for them, see "Other theory". Make sure it competes and solves part of the aff. 



    Will default to competing interps unless reasonability is argued and won. Please isolate internal links from your interp to your standards to education, fairness, and whatever other voting issues you read. I don't think T/FW is inherently violent, but I'll vote on it.



    Pretty cool, win FW, see "Kritiks".


    Other theory:

    I tend to lean neg, because being neg is already an uphill battle, but that doesn't mean you should read 48 condo advocacies. With this in mind, negs, please be reasonable, affs, read theory if there is real abuse. I reject argument, not team, by default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Perf con is a viable option depending on how strong the contradiction is.


    If questions, shoot me a PM.


    • Upvote 1

  2. Welcome to the Second Annual Online Debate Tournament! This was a tradition started by the cross-x hero beck9696.


    The Online Debate Tournament will be a double-elimination bracket tournament. The tournament will begin at a date to be decided depending on entries. The topic for the tournament is “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States."


    If you are interested in participating, please leave a reply to this post. Debaters, once eliminated, may be expected to judge future rounds. If you plan on debating or judging, please reply to this post, including your judging paradigm.


    List of entries:








































    1. Timeframe - All participants in the Online Debate Tournament have ONE day to submit their speech document from the last sent speech. A failure to submit a speech document in the allotted time will result in a forfeiture UNLESS an agreement is reached by all relevant debaters/judges. For cross examination, there is 24 hours allowed between a speech and the first cross examination post. After the first cross examination post, there is 24 hours allowed for further questions. The next speech is due 24 hours after the first cross examination after the last speech.
    2. Structure - All participants will follow traditional VDebate structure, where Word documents will be submitted.
    3. Word Count - Constructive Speeches will have a 2,750 word limit, and Rebuttals will have a 1,625 word limit. Participants are advised to use the "Stats" function found under the "Debate" tab of Verbatim to count their words.
    4. Judging, RFDs and Tabbing - Judges will give RFD’s and speaker points at the conclusion of the round. Unlike a normal debate, speaker points will be assessed based on the quality of the word document and the strategy that was deployed by the debater(s). Similar to a normal round, if any offensive rhetoric is used the judge will likely penalize the debater. The scale will be 0-30. Decisions regarding who won and speaker points are not to be disclosed, but rather submitted to me via PM on cross-x.com. Any comments after the round should be relevant to helping both sides improve and not "give away" who won.
    5. Pairings - Round one will start with a bracket with initial seeds randomly decided. After a debater loses a round, they drop to the "down" bracket. After losing two debates, a debater is eliminated. Because the tournament is bracketed, there will be little tabbing involved. Any tab-related information will be closed until the end of the tournament, excluding postings.
    6. Responsibilities - All pairings will be immediately announced, and it is the responsibility of the debater to look out for the announcement. If a debater fails to produce a speech document 24 hours after pairings have been announced, they will forfeit their round. This is strictly enforced.


    Furthermore, we have received another sponsorship from Exodus Debate Files. Exodus will be providing the following prizes for the tournament. 

    • A $10 discount code for tournament winner
    • A $5 discount code for second place
    • 1st speaker gets a $5 discount code, 2nd speaker gets a $4 code, and so on to 5th speaker getting a $1 off code
    • Upvote 4

  3. copied from another thread - as the season in Kansas wraps up, feel free to fill out as much or as little of this as you want






    Lay debater/partnership:



    Prettiest speaker:


    Most annoying:

    Best 1A:

    Best 2A:

    Best 1N:

    Best 2N:

    Most likely to do well next year:


    Underrated team:

    Best K debater:

    PTX debater:

    T debater:

    Most likely NDT champ:

    Nicest debater:

    Best Evidence:

    Best argument:

    Worst argument:

    Best K:

    Best Aff:

    Best excuse for losing:

    Best tournament for hanging out:

    Best human being:

  4. luckily for you, this is the T argument i've mained this year -



    2NR - Ikonen



    Extend the interp and violation – That’s Ikonen 99 – Education is the learning that happens in classrooms – The aff doesn’t change that – They concede plan in a vacuum which means you only evaluate the fact that the plan <<<PLAN>>> – That’s not a change of how learning happens in classrooms. 

    The TVA is <<<EXTEND TVA>>>, this argument checks any offense the aff has on both the standards and impact level. First, we prove they could have read a plan that meets our interpretation, solves their advantages, and involves discourse on the same subject as the aff. This takes out their limits and ground arguments. Second, under our interpretation there is potential to have virtually the same discussions of education <<<funding and/or regulation>>> they claim are key to fairness and education. That proves there’s a topical aff they could have read, but either chose not to so they could tilt the round in their favor, or were too lazy to find a better version of the aff. All their claims on fairness and education go away because they had the potential to achieve those, and if they didn’t it’s their own fault. The potential for the aff education is there, they ignored it. 



    The aff extends the counter interpretation that education is <<<COUNTERINTERP>>> but this is bad because it allows nearly anything to be topical as long as the aff talks about schools and can be somehow related to schools. 

    If you have time, elaborate on their interp bad, it’s not really a thing that can be blocked out but just take some time to criticize their interp as a piece of evidence if you come up with anything in round (no intent to define, tangential relationship to the topic, field context is wrong, etc.). If you can also come up with some crafty reason why they don’t even meet their interp that’s good. 


    Prefer our interpretation, first is limits: If we can’t reasonably limit, predict, and prepare for debates then we can’t make decent arguments in round, eliminating clash. Clash leads to critical thinking, without it, both sides of the debate lack in-round education, which is half the reason WHY we debate. Prefer our interpretation because we limit the resolution to a manageable degree, making neg prep possible. The aff interpretation under-limits by allowing anything about school, and potentially infinite affs, so long as they can prove association. This is bad because the aff can just do things like fund boilers, ban windows, mandate yoga, <<list more justified by their interp>>, making preparation, generating clash, and facilitating education on the neg impossible. 


    Next, we say depth over breadth: a more finite resolution means debaters have to be more creative and think critically to find more topical affs. Depth and breadth aren’t exclusive, but being able to make specific negative arguments to generate clash and therefore education, should come first. There’s no brightline for a lack of breadth – some topics like surveillance are super small, yet there are still PLENTY of affs every yearTo prove we over limit they have to show two things, 1) We limit out a SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT of aff ground, and 2) that ground is VALUABLE – they’ll hold us to the same standards on the ground debate so hold them to these standards here 

    Even if you buy their argument that breadth is preferable we can demonstrate we access it. Their claims that we would only end up debating a set of 3 or 4 affs in every round by the end of the season aren’t true, there are many affs that could meet our interpretation, <<<like STEM, Humanities, sex ed, AVID, and anything that changes a teaching style,>>>. 


    Next is ground two warrants, A) The aff interpretation hurts negative ground by taking out things like <<<the States CP and Fed DA – the states don’t have the right over the aff which means we miss out>>>, and B) if we can’t predict an aff we can never have specific offense to read against it. On large topics like this one, neg ground loss has more value than aff ground loss. The ground the aff loses is non-topical affirmatives that we wouldn’t be able to prep for. Because of that fact, this aff ground doesn’t have any real educational value after the 1AC – in-round education has to be a two-way street. While this goes on we lose key neg strategies from an already short list, hurting fairness. Affs can talk about nearly anything, while negs would read the same generic arguments every round. This takes out their education claims. By having access to nearly any government action, the aff can encroach upon key neg disad and counter plan ground. Action regarding instruction, and disadvantages specific to the instruction hold much more weight than generic disads. The aff interpretation justifies taking these away, further hurting fairness in debates. 


    <<<At best they’re extra-T, that’s a conceded internal link to limits, that’s bad because it allows for an infinite number of solvency mechanisms which explodes the resolution as long as it somehow results in a change in education>>> 


    <<<They say lit checks abuse but just because we read some generic offcase arguments and maybe had SOME case evidence doesn’t mean that it was good enough evidence to reach the full potential of fairness and therefore education that this round could have had the potential to reach. We weren’t able to debate on the same level as the aff which prevented us from questioning the truth of the aff, and good, prepared debates outweigh shabby semi-prepped debates that force us to go for T.>>> 




    <<<They say we limit out discussions of ethics – That’s not true <<<<<<the TVA solves, and>>>>>> reading those arguments as a CP solves, and affs exist under our interpretation which includes discussions of __________>>> 



    <<<answer theirs>>>



    Voting Issues 

    The impacts to fairness and education in this round have been clear: 


    On fairness, they have taken away core negative ground, limiting our strategy to weak generic arguments. Fairness is a voting issue because without it, debate becomes a coin toss over who gets which side, which makes debate meaningless, causing people to quit and the activity to fall apart. We come to debate for productive discourse, not to be talked at. 


    On education, the aff interpretation hurts fairness, resulting in the round becoming a coin toss and arguments becoming meaningless, which in turn hurts education. Education is the most important issue in the round, without in round education debate becomes a pointless competition, winning rounds because you found something so mundane that the neg couldn’t prepare for is an empty win. Without the critical thinking that goes into winning a debate round that both teams are prepared for, the activity loses all meaning. If we can’t make good arguments, debate is reduced to two teams talking past each other. We’ve already proven that A) we’re stuck with negative positions with little educational value, and B) they justify affs with little educational value, both of which are solved by our interpretation 


    Our analysis on standards shows their interpretation isn’t reasonable, which means that we still win under their framework, but you should prefer competing interpretations – it holds the aff to the resolution which is a prior question, and eliminates judge intervention which would take out the point of actually debating and turns the round into a decision dictated by the judge’s bias. If we’ve won the standards debate, we should win the round. The ballot doesn’t say vote for the team who affirms your bias, it says vote for the team who did the better job of debating, so vote neg. 


    • Upvote 2

  5. Thanks guys so much. If I may, for people who are familiar with the k, what if they say smth like since I spread, K links to off because spreading is used for acceleration of knowledge 

    not too well-versed in bifo or anything related to this aff, tbh, but you could say that spreading ruins knowledge and communication skills - if you're reading a "productivity bad" type argument, it's probably a solid route, ie, "we spread not to win the round, but rather its a performance of us destroying the ability to rationally comprehend what we're saying and make effective communication impossible"

  6. How does the PIC support the 1AC when an alternative is being advocated for? Is that not contradicting?

    The alt on the PIC isnt so much an alt, we say we can do the aff minus the way you represent refugees as terrorists


    Why does the alternative of anarchist pedagogy necessarily have to be without the state if the principles are achieved regardless?

    I'm not quite sure what you mean - We say that the state is bad. The analytic re: Gandhi is because he also opposed the state and specific, non-radical reforms of it


    If the status quo involves refugees perceived as the Other and incapable and the plan results in a new understanding of knowledge created by refugee students then how is this not a new form of knowledge production?

    Even if the plan is a "new" knowledge production, we still isolate several links to the aff that proves the aff isn't as revolutionary as you think, specifically the aff still relies on the idea that knowledge is to be dictated by the state


    Is the state always in a position to be rejected regardless of any action it takes (i.e. banning slavery)?

    The "good" things that the state has done were either a. to benefit the state, b. to fix a problem the state created, and/or c. can be done without the state. Even if its good in a few instances, the state isnt key to those things.


    How is the CP "politically popular"?

    It doesn't involve the aff and is more effective than it, meaning even if there's links to the DA, those links are smaller than the ones created by the aff making it try or die for the CP.

  • Create New...