Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TheSnowball last won the day on August 14

TheSnowball had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1421 Excellent

About TheSnowball

  • Rank
    Hall of Fame

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    University of Kansas
  • Biography
    Previously "Rnivium"

Recent Profile Visitors

12308 profile views
  1. TheSnowball

    Intro to Biopower

    Start with simple online summaries and wikipedia articles, use that basic understanding to look through debate files and figure out what arguments you're interested in learning more about, go back and read through the sources for those cards, and then read the major authors or authors writing about their work. I know from experience that just sitting down and trying to read through a major work of a philosopher you're not familiar with is counter-productive and a waste of time.
  2. TheSnowball

    TFA State 2019 Date?

    Nevermind I was looking at the old date.
  3. TheSnowball


    The most likely scenario for the 1NR to explicitly reference 1NC cards/arguments is debating a case flow. The most important thing is for your 1N to do a good job of extending arguments. If the 1NR says something like "extend the second 1NC argument--no escalation from economic losses to inter-state conflict--that's Jervis, who's more qualified than any of their alarmist authors--it answers the internal warrant of the Tonnesson evidence because it says leaders wouldn't profit politically from economic diversionary war. Here's more evidence..." then you're going to be able to flow that without needing to see the 1NC flow. You can always go back and read the 1NC or 2AC evidence if you need to, but the evidence/warrant comparison in the 1NR is really what you're working with when you give that 2NR.
  4. TheSnowball


    I'm someone with bad flowing habits and all these questions are ones I've struggled with in the past. Hopefully I can provide some useful insight. 1) Consider what you need to flow of the 1NC in order to give a Negative block speech on that position. If it's the 3-card shell to your DA, you probably don't need that since you should understand your evidence and have pre-written extensions of it and a 2NC impact overview for the DA. If it's seven answers to the advantage, you probably need to flow that pretty closely in order to follow the 2AC line-by-line and give an effective speech extending key case arguments. Once you have an idea of what each person is taking in the Negative block, make sure that person has a sufficient 1NC flow to take their positions--but you don't need 2 transcriptions of the 1NC. 2) What I'm saying in "1)" kind of covers this--I wouldn't recommend sharing flows--it gets messy, annoying, and not understanding your partner's handwriting could cost you a debate. Besides that, definitely you should flow the 1NR as the 2N because you're probably giving a 2NR on some arguments the 1NR is making. 3) The only 2AC thing I flow before giving my 2AC is the case--write out your line-by-line answers and mark on your flow where you intend to read evidence. Every off-case position you're probably just reading blocks/cards (or maybe typing out some analytics from important evidence or your partner's killer CX questions). If you get the chance during prep time, you can backflow a basic sketch of the 2AC using your speech document or referencing your partner's flows, just enough to keep your flow of the Negative block orderly. There's no point in using your partner's flows for your 2AR because you get to flow their 1AR. All you need for the 2AR is a flow of the 1AR and the 2NR since those are the only arguments still in play. You can still reference your Negative block flows or your 2AC pre-flows/document if needed, though. 4) Visit this thread for another (better) breakdown by Colin and a link to a solid video by Bill Batterman. https://www.cross-x.com/forums/topic/61957-2nc1ar-prep/
  5. TheSnowball

    I have a small question

    To be honest, his Wikipedia page under the heading "philosophy" is not a bad place to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze
  6. TheSnowball

    Thanos Kritik

    I think you're referring to the argument "spark."
  7. TheSnowball

    I have a small question

    Deleuze is pretty complicated, so I'll dumb it down a bit. Basically, there are things. Many of them, actually. And all the things have a relationship to all the other things. It's all interconnected in one big rhizome without organs. Make sense?
  8. TheSnowball

    Debate is a game--- How do I win this?

    I think the Affirmative would be saying debating the resolution is actively bad. I agree the Negative can claim predictable stasis, I just think the Affirmative has a little more leeway if they win the resolution shouldn't be the focus.
  9. TheSnowball

    Debate is a game--- How do I win this?

    I guess it depends on how you define fairness. In the context of debate, fairness usually means adherence to rules and norms, so if the Affirmative wins the resolution should not be the focus of the debate, there's not a metric by which to tell that what they're discussing instead is unfair. If we equate fairness with competitive equity, I agree that the Negative could win that the Affirmative's alternative model of debate doesn't give both sides an equal chance to win.
  10. TheSnowball

    Debate is a game--- How do I win this?

    The debate isn't so much about whether debate is a game, but about whether the resolution is a rule.
  11. TheSnowball

    Aff "reasons to prefer" for a refugees aff

    I don't think you need to list off so many reasons to prefer; it'll be hard to flow and you'll spend unnecessary 2AC time. In 1NC CX, ask what specific ground they lose: --if they can't think of any, say "no ground loss" in the 2AC. --if they list some things, either explain why those things are bad to debate or why your interpretation allows them in the 2AC. In the 2AC Make a "we meet" argument if possible. Read your counter-interpretation and say something like "that interpretation is best--our definition evidence is qualified and contextual--refugees are a predictable topic and discussing the violence done to refugees is more valuable than protecting arbitrary limits." Then, make a defensive argument to each 1NC standard, ("overlimiting is bad," "you still get XYZ ground.") Then you can say reasonability and "don't vote on potential abuse."
  12. TheSnowball


    DTA--"drop the argument"--means that as a consequence of a theory violation, a particular argument should be rejected. DTD--"drop the debater"--similar, meaning that it should be a voting issue, not just a reason to reject a particular argument. RANT--"reject the argument, not the team"--usually how you'll hear it in policy because there's a team of debaters rather than "the debater" (which is used in Lincoln-Douglas).
  13. TheSnowball

    What is the Monism K?

    Poking around online I found an LD Wiki that mentions it. https://hsld15.debatecoaches.org/Cambridge+Rindge/Sussman+Neg You can probably just research the term outside of the context of debate and come to conclusions about what it would look like as a K.
  14. TheSnowball

    Multiple Alts

    Yeah, a K can operate at an ideological/epistemological, in-round level or at a material/hypothetical level. You'd probably want the hypothetical alternative to be in the 1NC but, as misrap354 said, have a framework argument that can resolve your offense. Then you can frame the K in the 2NR adaptively to the 1AR.
  15. TheSnowball

    Solvency for Untried Plans

    You should find a solvency card in the area of the Affirmative and write a plan that does what the card says we should do. I can help you find a solvency advocate if you want to share your idea.