Jump to content

LibidoBibleElbow

Member
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Okay

About LibidoBibleElbow

  • Rank
    Novice

Profile Information

  • Name
    Evan Rhodes
  • School
    Harriton High School
  1. LibidoBibleElbow

    First time policy debating late in the season - what can I (we) run?

    Okay guys, I met with my partner today (well technically yesterday by this point) and we discussed all the things posted here and incorporated them into our strategy as best we can. First thank you goes to Lion Debater, we looked up all of his affs on Openevidence and found an OTEC case specifically labelled "novice" and which we have decided to use, soley for that reason. Having read over other ones, it seems this novice case is shorter and simpler which I like, but has a focus on extinction I find somewhat strange but I have been told by our senior that human annihilation is a staple of policy debate so it's okay I guess. Janxtang - I guess you mean are the judges lay judges or do they "write flows"? (whatever that means) The judges are all coaches and current and former varsity debaters to my knowledge. Yeets - Any offcase negs or Kritiks you like that a novice like myself can comprehend/run? I don't have much prepared in the realm of negs outside what I was given in squirrel kills and what I plan to find on Openevidence so if you can please point me in the right direction to find generic offcase negs and Kritiks I would be grateful. Jhiggins - I think you're underselling yourself, this was great information! What you wrote on the States CP makes me think I understand it better especially as Federalism was something we went over in U.S. History. It seems impossible to get enough negs/disads to run an entire negative case on, and since I don't understand Kritiks I think I'm going to be relying on the counterplan a lot. Thanks for the help! Rainsilves - Dank meme.
  2. Hello Cross-X forum friends, my partner and I have been debate nomads at our school for a bit, and this week we've been drafted to cover for our school's only policy debate team. We're not competing too seriously, of course, but we're looking not to make a fool out of ourselves or our school. The team we're filling in for and googling/lurking has taught us the basics of the order and a lot of the vocabulary - and we think we have a good grasp of that stuff, as we've observed a couple rounds of Policy before. We have no specific policy debate coach and our school wide coach tends to focus on LD debaters - basically we're coachless and mentor-less. Left out to dry. So, I've decided to come to what seems to be a pretty active cross-x forum to ask the noble denizens what case(s) I should run and a counterplan I can run in order to not make a mess of the debate round we're going to stand in for next weekend. Our school provided us with "squirrel killers" which appear to amount to scattered evidence and a lot of "on-case" negative cards. We've become familiar with Openevidence which seems to provide a multitude of cases we could run and a wide array of negative cards against given cases that we can use when it comes to debate day - but we have no idea which ones would be best for complete newbies like ourselves to run. In addition, I've run into a bunch of "K" cases and counterplans and such on Openevidence that I can't make heads or tails of. They reference a lot of specific philosophers I've never studied before and I can't exactly see how they win debates? I'd love explanations of "K" arguments I'd probably run into because I don't really understand how to debate against that. Having mostly debated parli in the past - it's usually data vs data but "K"'s seem out of my league. Any resources or guides for newbies would be appreciated. Basically - huge noob, what case/counterplan should I run? Thanks for helping me out, I'll tell you guys how it goes after the tournament if you're interested!
×