Jump to content

Nonegfiat

Member
  • Content Count

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Everything posted by Nonegfiat

  1. i'm fine with the round continuing. if i may make a couple points out of this incident-- 1) this is, in my opinion, the problem with language K's in debate. tying ableist rhetoric to the ballot inherently trivializes the issue because it creates a competitive incentive to "catch" people using problematic language. i have no doubt the people offended by the way you ran this kritik would also take offense to actual ableist rhetoric used in round, so where's the line between when someone should actually lose for using ableist language and when it's offensive to suggest they should lose? i think it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt and leave questions of language and discourse to interpersonal dialogue rather than making it part of the competition. obviously there's a line past which the offense becomes blatant, but if that line gets crossed, the round should just stop. If a white debater used the N word, i dont think the appropriate reaction is to read a 2AC K for three minutes of your next speech and move on, the appropriate reaction is "alright, that's it. everyone out of the pool" and proceed to educate that debater or take whatever other measure is necessary. give space to the offended debater, request help, whatever. my point is that it's not to be made an issue within the round 2) Holden, this was going to be in my post round feedback but since this has come up I'll say it now. I have two major problems with your link argument. The first is that you're claiming links off of words that are either un-highlighted or straight up shrunken. only one of your links actually appears in highlighted text, and i know this because you invited the judges to control f the 1AC. You can't do that. Your links have to be part of the actual speech act. otherwise you justify someone pulling up an article written by someone's solvency advocate from two decades ago which uses the word "mankind" and saying they should lose. The second problem, while we're talking about the one actual link you had, is that you have to actually use discretion when making these links. Not every reference to sight, hearing, etc. is ableist. In the case of this link you tried to go for, the line from the card was: "the empowerment that people have when they’re able to sit down with someone else to learn and hear the backstory, then find a solution that works for both sides", with the offending line being "and hear the backstory". This is a literal, explicit reference to someone hearing something, not a metaphor that scripts value onto able bodiedness. The only legitimate link i found was the moral blindness thing, but again that was unhighlighted dont feel bad though. these are sensitive issues but are also very complicated, which is a tough combination to navigate, so everyone has to learn at some point. so just continue the round and do your best to win, as long as your opponent is still willing to debate
  2. This is one reason why kicking planks is an instance of Bad Behavior in Debate.
  3. If you wanna go based off of accomplishments, Rutgers NM and Emporia SW won both the NDT and CEDA in 2017 and 2013, respectively, which is a big deal. K teams to win the TOC in high school include McDonogh JN, Centennial KK, and CK McClatchy HS (I guess they count as a K team, but they're pretty flex) Obviously there's also Michigan KM, Oklahoma CL, Loyola EM, and Harvard BS. Kansas KR has been dominant this year and I wouldn't be surprised if they won the NDT. Wake Forest EF is a double first year team who's been absolutely scary this year, making it to quarters of both swings and getting a first round. I can only imagine how good they'll be as seniors. While we're on the topic of Wake, Charles Athanasopoulos is another top-notch K debater. He made it to NDT semis last year as Wake AS and could make another run this year. Other top K teams from high school-- NoBro MR, BCC EY, BCC GM, Little Rock Central WW, MBA GJ, Bronx Law AL. In terms of who's the best, it's pretty subjective. There's no one team or debater considered to be the best of all time, but right now it's probably safe to say no one is topping Quaram Robinson from Kansas. But again, it's all up to opinion.
  4. there's a video of shirley semis where they did it. they didn't get the W that round but it's still a good debate
  5. The Online Debate Tournament is still happening, this extra round is just something the four of us thought we would do for fun.
  6. Yeah what everyone said is right, but I’m gonna say it too because I hate when people make this argument. Just because your aff is supported by the NDCA/NSDA or its in the novice packet does not make it fucking topical. The whole point of T debates is to prove your interpretation is BETTER than the aff’s, which makes it completely irrelevant whether some debate organizations think the plan is topical. That’s like saying “this evidence was in the novice packet, therefore you’re not allowed to indict its credentials because the league says it’s good” like no, that’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works
  7. I agree with most of the stuff here, but why should the aff lose if the plan text is abusive? If anything, abusive plan texts are good because they force the neg to think critically, which is net better for education.
  8. Well, it was first brought up as a hypothetical and now it's happening for real. Me, AQuackDebater, CynicClinic, and TheSnowball, are having a 4 person vDebate. And not just one vDebate, but two! (We'll be switching sides between the two rounds) We're doing this NDT style, so we're looking to fill out a panel of 5 judges. If you're interested in judging just reply to this post with your paradigm (If you've already posted your paradigm on the recent Online Debate Tournament thread, you can just let us know and we'll check for you) In the coming days, we'll announce the panel, and eventually get the round started! (As this is a demo debate, research will take time, but we wanted to get a head start on finding judges. After we find the panel we'll begin the round as soon as we can!)
  9. Nonegfiat

    Midterms

    there are three main ones i've seen this year: CTR which is obviously no longer a thing, DACA which i loved reading but is more than a little bit shaky at this point, and infrastructure which is fine
  10. Nonegfiat

    Midterms

    80% of the politics disads ive hit on the college topic have been midterms. i dont like them very much: 1. trump impeachment is not going to happen 2. it's easy to impact turn impeachment to say it causes lashout 3. people read these generic impacts to trump presidency as if he's not in office already 4. supermajority is the best scenario i agree, but there isn't really any good evidence that says passing NHI would give the GOP a supermajority, and if it isn't true on healthcare i can't imagine it would be true for education. in general i think trump's unpopularity (along with a lot of other stuff) thumps the aff and if you wanna do politics, an agenda da is the way to go. edit: and as ZidaoWang pointed out, uniqueness definitely overwhelms on the supermajority stuff anyway
  11. yeah im down. me and patrick can put the beat on ian and ryan. im sure with the four of us, the round would pretty likely get finished
  12. I'm happy to compete if we need people but I think I'd be better suited to judging. I have no backfiles on this topic but I have judged about 10 rounds on it so far so I'm familiar enough to judge. Paradigm:
  13. The best team on the HS circuit last year were HSS alums.
  14. Yeah so if you're from a stock issues circuit there are several things you can expect people will do differently as you start to travel for tournaments. (Take this with a grain of salt because I know neither your home circuit nor the tournament to which you're travelling, but in general I think this is accurate) First of all, people will be a lot faster and more tech oriented, because the judging at bigger tournaments allows them to do so. There is less emphasis on persuasion/style and more emphasis on the content of your arguments, namely how good your evidence is and how well you can leverage it to win the "game" of debate. Many judges operate under the paradigm of tech over truth, which means, among other things, that dropped arguments are usually considered true, and that "bad" arguments can be won if they're properly defended. Secondly, affirmatives will structure their case differently and negatives will adapt their strategy accordingly. Maybe you're used to seeing a contention for each stock issue. That won't happen at bigger tournaments (except occasionally solvency will have its own contention). Most affs will have two to three advantages that focus on the internal links and impacts of their harms, and that will be how they spend the bulk of their time. Cases will contain answers to all the key questions that stocks are meant to check, but they aren't usually stated explicitly because it's all about the impacts. I mentioned negative strategy above. Just like stock issues aren't the centerpiece of aff cases, they won't be the focus of negative offense either. Most commonly, solvency will be read on case, and topicality will be read offcase, but that's the extent to which stock issues are debated. Instead, negatives will spend most of their time reading other offcase positions, which can get a little wild. Don't be surprised if you see people reading upwards of 5 off, with multiple counterplans at once, or with a counterplan and a kritik. The key to beating these neg strats is 2AC efficiency. Get through case quickly, and make your best arguments answering the off case. The block is inevitably going to try to capitalize on whatever they think you did the worst job on, so you want to make that decision hard for them by knowing ahead of time what your best arguments are and arranging them strategically. Along those lines, I don't know about your circuit's attitude toward conditionality, but the higher up you get the more likely people are to be open to it. People are also more likely to be open to junky process counterplans that result in the aff but claim a net benefit by doing something differently than the aff. So be prepared to defend each part of your plan text. Last thing, kritiks. This varies a lot depending on location, but I know people who debated on local circuits where most judges wouldn't even listen to cap, but then they decide to go to Glenbrooks and suddenly people are beating them on one-off Baudrillard. It might be good to get a general sense of what kritiks are popular on the topic and how to beat them, because there's a lot of variety in how to properly engage k's. In general, every K 2AC needs a few things-- Framework (usually "let us weigh the aff" accompanied by some defense of consequentialism or util), a permutation, something on the link debate which argues that your plan or your model of communication is good for x harm area, and an alt takeout such as cedes the political, state engagement key, or something along those lines. Those are important pieces of a K 2AC but those alone won't make a complete 2AC. You always need something engaging their specific argument or if you have nothing, a very very robust defense of your method. And, sometimes people read kritikal affs which don't endorse a plan but rather advocate an ethical framework or a mindset shift within the debate space. You can beat these by reading kritiks, but the easiest route, especially if you're just starting out debating K affs, is just go 2 off framework and cap, and usually go for framework in the 2NR. If you have any questions about how to do that, I'd be happy to explain further but I think this post has gotten long enough. Good luck! edit: typo
  15. Can I request a card saying that solar panels don't link to politics?
  16. I know this isn’t an answer to what you were asking for, but I would say that just because k teams are used to debating framework doesnt necessarily make it unstrategic. You can offset that factor by becoming very comfortable with framework yourself, since the args are pretty intuitive. It just takes some practice. Top policy teams win on it against top K teams all the time, with the only real deviation being that they will occasionally go for cap instead. You don’t see a lot of top policy teams beating k affs on things like psychoanalysis or Wilderson or whatever else. Especially not something like CTP as a stand-alone criticism of their method. I mean that can be a good case arg to extend into the 2NR along with another argument, but it’s not a supplement for framework or cap. Anyway, what 2AC framework args are you getting stuck on? Maybe we can work through them
  17. Nonegfiat

    Debaters

    some people do it in good faith and seriously care about making debate inclusive, but 90% of the time when someone edits language in a card it's to avoid a link. it doesn't happen in debate forms where people aren't allowed to make you lose for saying things like "you guys"
  18. so, i've found that there are two broad ways to view a perm 1. it's a test of competition, which determines whether the counterplan is legitimate. if the counterplan doesn't compete, then it's a nonstarter. it also means the question of a link to the net benefit is irrelevant 2. it's treated as a separate policy option whereby the aff tries to soak up the neg's offense on the counterplan. the neg responds by saying "perm still links to the net benefit" is seems like number 2 is a lot more common than number 1, but i think that justifies the neg reading any irrelevant or obscure counterplan that gets to be competitive as long as it avoids a link of the neg's choosing. For example, most advantage counterplans seem to come out of nowhere and rely on links to generic disads to beat permutations. So instead of just beating the disad, the aff now has to worry about making solvency deficits to some arbitrary counterplan because otherwise the risk of the link is probably gonna outweigh the risk of a net benefit to case of course, there are plenty of reasons advantage counterplans are good. they force the aff to defend the intrinsicness of its advantages without going the route of piccing out of something, which is probably better but i just get stuck on the unpredictability of most advantage counterplans. I feel like they give the neg too much leverage, and that the neg should have to prove competition with the aff before they get to solve case rather than forcing the aff to beat a link of the neg's choosing before they can stop a noncompetitive counterplan from stealing their offense. in other words, i think the question of the counterplan's germaneness should come before the question of the link's germaneness thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...