Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by brodrillard

  1. real talk besides structural violence impacts, several camps have produced affs with big stick policy impacts, namely the STEM aff (while it is mainly based a lengthy link chain but still) has advantages like econ, heg, global warming, ive also seen some like military affs with big heg impacts like nuke war and stuff? on face it seems like a k oriented topic but there have certainly been some more policy affs
  2. does anyone have any camp powerpoints or anything theyd be cool with sharing? i went to a rather trash camp and want to learn as much as possible, and i figured watching lectures/reading powerpoints from other camps might help with that thx in advance
  3. 98% chance youll get a super trad judge, ie think like a random mom from the birmingham area that has a kid in debate, if youre really lucky you may get a coach as a judge but even then most coaches will be split up in like the tab room or topic discussion room or whatever, so if i were you id bet on prepping very lay
  4. aAttention: If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Exposure to asbestos in they Navy, shipyards, mills, heating, construction or the automotive industries may put you at risk. Please don't wait, call 1-800-99 LAW USA today for a free legal consultation and financial information packet. Mesothelioma patients call now! 1-800-99 LAW USA

  5. Attention: If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Exposure to asbestos in they Navy, shipyards, mills, heating, construction or the automotive industries may put you at risk. Please don't wait, call 1-800-99 LAW USA today for a free legal consultation and financial information packet. Mesothelioma patients call now! 1-800-99 LAW USA
  6. Attention: If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Exposure to asbestos in they Navy, shipyards, mills, heating, construction or the automotive industries may put you at risk. Please don't wait, call 1-800-99 LAW USA today for a free legal consultation and financial information packet. Mesothelioma patients call now! 1-800-99 LAW USA
  7. I think finals will be UCO HS and UMKC AT - theyve both done rly well, and UCO is reallllllllllly good esp w/ FWK (plus one of UCOs only dropped ballots was to UMKC AT, arguably the other best team there)
  8. i would read borderlands/la frontera by gloria anzaldua, its half in spanish half english, and half prose half poetry, ive used it b4 in something similar to an academy k but its pretty cool if you wanna do something more like performance
  9. whats good west oklahoma, r u ready 2 get #Shrekd
  10. In response to your question, the first time i started seeing the news articles and whatnot about "Fake News", my first thought was baudrillard. If he were still alive (RIP to the king), im sure we'd have another Gulf War Didnt Happen-esque dissertation on the situation. It literally follows the definition of hyperreality verbatim (and is a really good and easy way to explain the hyperreal to ppl)
  11. you probably shouldnt (at least, if you want to be moral/have a better chance of winning rounds/not be racist)
  12. Jean Baudrillard (/ˌboʊdriːˈɑːr/; French: [ʒɑ̃ bodʁijaʁ]; 27 July 1929 – 6 March 2007) was a French sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as simulation and hyperreality. He wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, gender relations, economics, social history, art, Western foreign policy, and po...

  13. brodrillard


    heres some, i would check websites like vbriefly.com and public debate iniative and nsd update for cards/articles written by graduated debaters that are pretty nuanced and specific to the debate space itself (usually circuit lders, but still have the same message tht u seem to want) (Sean Fahey, 2016) Sean Fahey, h.-o.-l.-t.-t.-l.-c. (2016, Nov 26). An Open Letter to the LD Community: Are We Putting Our Pedagogical Money Where Our Mouth Is? Public Debate Inititive ., https://publicdebateinitiative.org/2016/11/25/an-open-letter-to-the-ld-community/ What’s left is a community of very ‘woke’ students who thrive on a set of, honestly, quite bizarre community norms framed by espousals of a community ethic of academic progressivism. As we’ve started speaking faster and spending more time with our faces buried in academic literature studying the root conditions of social inequity, I think we’ve lost sight of the intersection between the now eve[1]r-present discussions of the oppressed in rounds and the real marginalized students who aren’t given the opportunity to speak in the debate space that we’ve carved out around their social image. Debate, with the apparent tenure of role of the ballot-style arguments, is evolving into it’s potential as a micropolitical space that would be incredibly valuable for oppressed voices who are all too often placed in educational settings that, fatally, do not give them the skills to question their own situations. We must go forth with unwavering self-critique of our tendency to fall into internalist tunnel vision if we are to reclaim authenticity in an increasingly obfuscated debate climate. I debated locally on the New Orleans, Louisiana LD circuit for Benjamin Franklin High School all four years of high school. My sophomore year I became cognizant of the national (or TOC) circuit of debate and knew I wanted to be part of it. I looked up to the national circuit debaters I watched, they seamlessly could control a round and think fast on their feet. But those debaters generally came from big programs with funding for coaches and travel, which made their presence on the national circuit of little controversy. I never felt the same comfort. Coming from a small charter school in education budget-stripped Louisiana, my school was unable to monetarily assist me in the, frankly, enormous costs to travel nationally and could only give me the ability to use the school name. My family isn’t rich, but we get by, and I was lucky enough to have a father invested enough in debate to travel with me to tournaments across the country out of our pocket. I traveled nationally my junior and senior years and qualified to the Tournament of Champions both years and saw, first hand, the ways that debate excludes those who need it most. During my time debating, one thing always tore at my connection to the activity: the hands-on disparities I felt as an independent (or “lone wolf”) debater and, much larger than my own struggle, the unspoken truth of the barrier to entry faced by countless racially and economically disenfranchised students across the country. The national circuit rests on a set of paradoxes: we speak rapidly in an intense lexicon of jargon indecipherable by those outside of our nerd commune, but read cases that tout frameworks about establishing social conditions for participatory and moral inclusion; tournament directors homogenize independent debaters as anarchic forces that threaten the stability of established program hegemony, but if a debater defends any long-standing institution of power they are likely to be critiqued as a degenerate peddling the ideology of absolute evil; programs would rather hire a new coach to turn debaters into perfect social justice allies for ballots, instead of dedicating funds to scholarships to allow low-income students in middle school debate leagues to access the established, well-funded programs that win rounds off of recycled images of these students very real social position. Sadly, the inconsistencies go on and, upon examination of this quiet hypocrisy, our supposed devotion to the radical restructuring of powerful systems in favor of the oppressed looks more like soft-boiled, self-moralizing liberalism. It seems to be the case that it’s time to put our intellectual money where are mouths are and for the prevailing in-and-out of round discussion to shift from, ‘What can debate do for the marginalized?’ to ‘How can we incorporate the marginalized into high levels of debate?’ Talking to local circuit debaters coming from a background in national circuit debate was always incredibly humbling because I had no greater claim to my ability to travel than the less privileged debaters I spoke to. They would speak longingly about the ability to travel and see the regional spectrums of the national circuit, be privy to experienced judges, and have the ground to read new philosophy. These students often dealt with various combinations of undedicated and/or inexperienced coaches, lack of school funding, and personally unstable financial situations. These students have all the passion and curiosity (if not more) of the greatest national circuit debaters and the barrier they face is unacceptable in a community that espouses mass, unabashed openness. Some tournaments and debate camps have begun to feature open table discussions about community issues of exclusion surrounding race, gender, sexuality, etc. These discussions are incredibly valuable and I have been a part of many of them, but they are ultimately not encompassing of those who have no voice in those discussions at all. They are part of a privileged form of liberalism that has proliferated national circuit debate. It hails anyone’s inclusion into discursive spaces…as long as you can pay for your plane tickets to the Glenbrooks. We must understand discrimination in debate as multi-leveled. The type of discrimination we are generally concerned about is the institutional disparities between social groups within debate. This is only the surface and it overlooks the web of structural violence and exclusion that keeps debate, and many sites of political discourse, defined by class lines and prejudice. It is the lived reality of these forgotten, yet never introduced students that show us exactly whom debate’s “critical pedagogy” is not made for. “Critical pedagogy” is a term often thrown around in debate rounds without much inquiry as to what it constitutes, it has just become another assumption in our jargon and a buzzword. Paulo Freire, one of the first to write extensively on the subject, explains these forgotten, yet defining features of critical pedagogy in Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B,” mediated by the world—a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it. These views, impregnated with anxieties, doubts, hopes, or hopelessness, imply significant themes on the basis of which the program content of education can be built. In its desire to create an ideal model of the “good [human],” a naively conceived humanism often overlooks the concrete, existential, present situation of real people. … For the truly humanist educator and the authentic revolutionary, the object of action is the reality to be transformed by them together with other people—not other men and women themselves… The revolutionary’s role is to liberate, and be liberated, with the people—not to win them over.” Critical arguments and identity politics attempt to create a model of good human conduct towards the Other, but currently do very little materially to include many of those that they claim to liberate with their words. Critical pedagogy is defined by the egalitarian academic relationship between the marginalized student, educators, and academic spheres, such that they can come together to draft authentic liberatory strategies for the historically marginalized. These arguments may exist as cathartic and crucial academic avenues for traditionally societally marginalized students who are fortunately allowed to debate, but the proliferation of these arguments has not lead to the proliferation of attempts to bridge the socially deprived and the national circuit – these arguments can only benefit those who have already been integrated, which seems odd from a community that treats Wynter and Leighton like one of the 10 Commandments. Impersonal appeals to roles of ballots and judges are ultimately what Freire characterizes as revolutionary’s appealing to the marginalized in an attempt to ‘win them over.’ This is problematic because it imagines the marginalized solely as an object of suffering and not as a concrete, political subject with potential for creating positive, material change. Debate heroism drains the marginalized of agency through false representation and, like any self-serving palliative in the economy of white supremacy, tells us that our dues have been paid to the marginalized without having to actually interact with them. Sure, the education that current debaters gain now is important, but are well-off students the ones who are really lacking an academic source of the critical thinking skills that debate fosters in comparison to students whose classroom setting are cyclically underfunded and present a façade of learning. Freire’s model of critical pedagogy critiqued the “banking model” of teaching that runs supreme in these destitute classrooms. Banking is characterized by the teaching of ‘objective’ facts to be memorized and repeated, but never critically examined – this is the demand of a society that mixes quality of academia and capital. The crucial issue with this model of education is that marginalized students never learn how to question the terms and conditions of their social location from this system because their social position is taught to them as fact to be internalized for regurgitation. Absent an educational site for marginalized students to relate their quotidian experiences with oppression to larger systems of social division’s historical construction, authentic and informed social and policy changes will never come because the voice of the marginalized is not its foundation. National circuit debate often only produces the privileged conjecture of what world the oppressed must desire if they think like the rest of us, and that approach disguises itself as a humanist gesture from elites to cover up their conscious use of narratives of real suffering to fulfill self-interested ends, which constitutes the total commodification of the suffering of the Other. Which is to say, the suffering of the Other is used as a strong persuasive tool to breed fear-based politics around a narrative of moral absolution to Western liberalism. In a society structured heavily by class lines, we continually consume images of the suffering to relieve deep-seated anxieties about our own social locations through displacement. This is why people watch mindless reality television and shows like Narcos or Orange is the New Black, which serve as disaster porn for an increasingly numbed audience. When heteronormative, sexist, and racist violence is what average people watch before they go to bed, how do we actually process impacts of structural violence and social death against groups of people who are largely not even present? In The Illusion of the End, sociologist Jean Baudrillard examines this frenzied devouring of suffering: “We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the ‘other half of the world’ [[‘autre monde]. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty – charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution, which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. […] material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives.” Without an authentic attempt to place the exploited in the center of our discussions, we commodify their real, lived experiences to moralistic ballot appeals that quarantine potentially liberatory discussion to a 45-minute discursive proxy wars where the only real goal is the accumulation of communal prestige. Fiat fuels our politics of exaggeration by establishing an undue assumption of reality behind the advocacies of debaters. This allows debaters to make claims like voting aff is a “try-or-die” situation for the marginalized people the aff speaks about, but after the round the aff doesn’t happen, no one is saved and those people may still ‘or-die’, but the judge and debater leave and feel like they’re done the ‘right’ thing. Here we see exactly why the subjectivities of the marginalized are absolutely essential when deconstructing historical lines of oppression. The marginalized are the sole interlocutor between perspectives defined by survival and subversion against prevailing paradigms of total antagonism, and the revolutionary energy stored within the silenced for reclamation of a stolen humanity. It is critical education that allows the marginalized to synthesize these two conditions into real change that defies our scheduled demands for suffering. An example familiar to a fair amount of debaters who have, inadvertently or not, read this argument is Damien Schnyder, UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellow, when he writes about the importance of including ‘black thought’ in light of it’s historic exclusion by virtue of it’s ability to imagine alternatives to our major systems of economy. It is this hegemonic fear of possibility that explains both the debate community’s flocking to Blackness studies as the new, cool outlook, and it’s simultaneous disavowal of personal narrativity through a culture that worships academic evidence: “Black bodies, through their collective experiences of subjugated Blackness, become a threat to the very function of civil society. Blackness has to be contained and managed in order to protect white supremacy. […] It is at this moment – when Blackness becomes identified as antithetical to the notions of work –that white supremacy is able to unleash it’s fury upon the Black body. For it is within this space that the Black body can have anything and everything done to protect the order of civil society.46 Thus in order to contain the threat of Blackness, the Herculean managers of the hydra-like attack upon society are teachers (Linebaugh & Rediker, 2000).47 Within the development of civil society, the function of teachers is to both categorize states of being and enclose Blackness. […] Students are prevented from interjecting alternative versions of economic systems within the framework of the discussion. Students must perform the perfunctory duty of work (basic memorization and recitation skills) not to only to be awarded with a passing grade, but not to be penalized. The result is a silencing of Black voices whose life experiences are in direct contradiction with hegemonic constructions of economy (i.e. supply and demand) that was taught by Mr. Keynes. There was no space to analyze the racial structure that frames economic modes of relation, nor was there opportunity to engage in dialogue with regards to the economics of why many of the students had to work to support their families.” If we are to create true critical pedagogy, centrally interested in the marginalized student’s liberation, the community must devote itself to actually doing the ‘right’ thing after these rounds and confirming that direction with those we intend to recover full humanity with. If we legitimately care about the community principle of fighting structural violence, we must start with those who understand that violence as quotidian. Hegemonic systems privilege established factions because the marginalized have very purposefully never been given an active voice in social construction. We are beginning to face a challenge to the extent of our progressivism and it increasingly seems like we’re only willing to draw attention to the marginalized when it posits us as discursive Robin Hoods and fills our ego with ballots. This orientation risks inculcating bad dispositions towards life and political agency outside of debate. When judges aren’t there to drool over social justice parlor tricks, debaters have no incentive to do anything more than change their Facebook profile pictures in line with social events to get the same self-moralism through ‘likes’ and validation. Therefore, if we are to earnestly reverse this trend, the role of the debate community is to give marginalized students a new and encompassing means by which they can speak in the supposed ‘space of inclusion’ we’ve built, otherwise debate’s tragic irony can only be described as an ivory tower made to host elephants. I can only think of the countless impoverished students that we implicitly refer to when we make structural violence arguments, and their deeply ironic absence as we claim to do something novel. The faces behind our impacts cannot afford to be in the room to know they’ve been saved. Some may characterize this as fatalistic and an unfair evaluation of the state of debate activism, but I view it more as a realistic platform for looking forward. We have done well to create such an open-minded space amongst mostly privileged actors, we simply need to redirect that energy to real programs instead of ballots that do nothing for the social groups that they are directed at. Urban debate leagues do good work in exposing marginalized students to forums of critical exchange, but few do well in bridging the gap to the national circuit. Teams like Newark Science Park in Newark and Success Academy in New York City constitute only a small section of the national circuit, but give us a good vision for how independent actors should work to empower traditionally excluded schools and communities. It should be noted that these schools are able to have such progressive programs due to the crucial coaching work of ex-debaters who are willing to give back to those who need debate most. Ex-debaters with national circuit experience should give serious thought to devoting some time to helping those who otherwise cannot experience what they did. Revolutionary education is only valuable if we spread it to those who have a significant stake in its vision and national circuit does give us a conceptually great framework for the marginalized to imagine change. However, as an ex-independent and as someone who coaches a few independent debaters now, arbitrary exclusion of independents is rampant. This stigma derives from the belief by a group of prominent coaches that independents homogenously are not held accountable for school rules, do not provide judges, and are somehow betraying their schools. When I debated nationally, I, and my current independent students, followed all tournament and school rules, provided judges consistently, and had approval from the school. These facts did not allow me to register for anti-independent tournaments (which include massive bid tournaments) and did not stop tournament directors from making registration harder than necessary. My, and many other aspiring debaters, situation is not the fault of students; it’s the fault of nationally poorly funded public education programs. We effectively victim blame students for going to public schools in the status quo of debate, so, before we hail ourselves for being progressive leftists, we ought to examine our own practices, prejudices, and norms ” Sean Fahey, h.-o.-l.-t.-t.-l.-c. (2016, Nov 26). An Open Letter to the LD Community: Are We Putting Our Pedagogical Money Where Our Mouth Is? Public Debate Inititive ., https://publicdebateinitiative.org/2016/11/25/an-open-letter-to-the-ld-community/ Proper pedagogy necessitates focus on strategies to solve oppression –education is a starting point for demanding solutions for oppression and reordering power structures. Giroux15 Henry A. Giroux, 3-17-2015, "Henry A. Giroux," Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29693-higher-education-and-the-politics-of-disruption [1] “Higher education must be understood as a democratic public sphere - a space in which education enables students to develop a keen sense of prophetic justice, claim their moral and political agency, utilize critical analytical skills, and cultivate an ethical sensibility through which they learn to respect the rights of others. Higher education has a responsibility not only to search for the truth regardless of where it may lead, but also to educate students to make authority and power politically and morally accountable while at the same time sustaining a democratic, formative public culture. Higher education may be one of the few public spheres left where knowledge, values and learning offer a glimpse of the promise of education for nurturing public values, critical hope and a substantive democracy. Democracy places civic demands upon its citizens, and such demands point to the necessity of an education that is broad-based, critical, and supportive of meaningful civic values, participation in self-governance, and democratic leadership. Only through such a formative and critical educational culture can students learn how to become individual and social agents, rather than merely disengaged spectators, [must be] able both to think otherwise and to act upon civic commitments that demand a reordering of basic power arrangements fundamental to promoting the common good and producing a meaningful democracy [1] Polychroniou, CJ, Neoliberalism and the Politics of Higher Education: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux, Truthout, March 26, 2013, http://truth-out.org/news/item/15237-predatory-capitalism-and-the-attack-on-higher-education-an-interview-with-henry-a-giroux. DR. the purpose of education should be to learn to challenge oppressive structures, not perpetuate them, Bohmer 91 “Teaching Privileged Students about Gender, Race, and Class Oppression.” Teaching Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April, 1991) pp. 154-163. Our [a] strong emphasis on institutional oppression is not only due to our sociological approach to social psychology; it is also an outcome of our interactions with students. Let us repeat that most[ly] of our students are white and middle class [students], with limited exposure to group diversity. Much of the material we present is new to them and often difficult to absorb. One of their major problems lies in moving from individualistic explanations to a sociological analysis.Teaching in this setting, we have found that a focus on micro-level processes is fruitful only after we have addressed the concept of institutional oppression. Without an understanding of institutional aspects students decontextualize social interactions; they equate prejudice with oppression and argue that members of privileged groups are also oppressed. This position, of course, is untenable if we want the concept to remain useful for an analysis of class, race, and gender relationsin our society. Even while we emphasize institutional barriers for members of oppressed groups, we do not deny human agency by portraying oppressed individuals as trapped entirely by the confines of society. Balancing the two perspectives, however, is difficult, and the outcome depends strongly on our audience. With primarily white, middle-class students, who tend to advance individualistic explanations and who seem largely unaware of the institutional nature of oppression, we believe it is appropriate to stress barriers and limitations. If we taught a more diverse population we are certain that our discussion of oppression would focus more sharply on human agency as a potential for change. It can be both trying and challenging to integrate considerations of race, gender, and class into an introductory course on social psychology. We have experienced resistance, guilt, anger, and denial from many of our privileged students. Our greatest frustration is that students are reinforced in their resistance and denial because they experience little follow-up in other classes and have little ongoing exposure to the concepts we have introduced. We believe, however, thatexposure to the concept of oppression in ou r classeshelps at leastsomestudents to gain a greater understanding and appreciation for those who are different from themselves. Such exposure also leads some students to raise questions in other courses that do not take race, gender, and class into account.These students, who we hope will apply their knowledge to their everyday interactions with members of other groups, [and] encourage us to find new ways of introducing race, gender, and class into the sociology curriculum.
  14. have you all seen/joined the debate discord from r/debate and r/policydebate? its pretty cool, it was initially a program used for gaming but theyre using it for debate stuff and i think it works pretty well and has cool features and stuff, you could possibly make one of those but more specific to policy debate rather than every kind if you want
  15. in terms of dark ecology/eco pess debates, which author do yall think is better regarding the actual substance/literature of the k? upon reading more of bryant's other work and dissertations, i honestly think the focus on deconstructing hierarchies is contradictory with ecological pessimissm arguments and falls more along the lines of straight ontological pessimism (as in, like human extinction good to protect the environment, whereas Morton's take on dark ecology is like exinction inevitable so we should let everything go extinct) so in this sense, i think morton is actually better for ecopess but idk i may be interpreting bryant's stuff incorrectly, but i do think he's really great for critiques of Deleuze. a lot of people that run dark ecology/ecopess seem to use bryant a lot more than morton but i guess that may have information bias as i do ld but, still......... i think bryant is better for pure ontological pessimism than ecopess, if that makes sense correct me if i am wrong though, as i do know Bryant goes through constant evolutions in his ideologies, i.e. he used to be a very dedicated Deleuzian then in like 2007 he played Sims4 and now has written like 24084392 critiques of Deleuze and changed his whole stance on vertical hierarchies.
  16. oklahoma, actually, but i travel to texas for some tournaments!!
  17. heyyo im looking for a private coach! i dont exactly need one for policy debate per say - but LD. (keep in mind tho, the LD that i do is literally one person policy) i love the K, and performance, and literally anything critical - so if you are down with the K and/or have substantial experience with the K, that would be superb i would really like to get out there on the circuit next year, and ill probably be travelling independently so i can have more opportunities for #datbid (my school only goes to like 2 bid tournaments a year) im fairly successful for my first year on the circuit, having a relatively good record @ St Marx (rly hard tournament for LD), and breaking @ UT and making it to doubles so like im willing to do whatever work needed i just need someone familiar with the circuit/progressive db8/kritikal argumentation (which i understand that this is a policy forum and the likelihood of someone familiar with nat circuit LD is low but one can hope!) id probably start needing one at the beginning of the upcoming school year (per my parents' words) you dont necessarily have to be local, like i probably wont ask you to travel (unless i get that #dank #toc #bid) i just need someone to help like in the instance of if im at a big tournament some weekend and need prep-outs via text or whatever (if you dont live in texas), and like casing help and whatever, u know like what private coaches do b4 anyone gets weirded out that its LD or w/e, everything thats in policy is in LD (at least, circuit LD) (aka if youre a college policy debater then u would still be perfectly fine coaching me) (this is proven from experience) if yr interested or can at least direct me in the way of someone that would be PLZ comment and ill PM you !!!!!!!
  18. apparently comet debate institute (ut dallas' camp) and UNT merged and just posted it abt it 10 minutes ago i guess UNT/MGW doesnt exist anymore if anyone could recommend somewhere with a dank K lab tht would b gr8 i guess
  19. heyyo im about to start deciding which camp i want to go to next summer (if you couldnt tell by the title) and im getting conflicting reccomendations for a lil background, i do national circuit LD (aka p much one person CX if you arent familiar with it) and cx sometimes (not on the nat circ tho) not to toot my own horn or anything but i consider myself a pretty decent k debater?? i almost exclusively only run kritkal/performance affs and the k literally every round (and win off the k, btw) i wanna go to a cx camp rather than an ld camp so i can improve my skills with tha k, b/c if i wanna achieve my LD nat circ goals then i just need to improve my technical skills rather than topic-oriented skills soooooooooooo i was either planning on going to UTNIF for the 2 week skills intensive, or UNT for the K lab* *(assuming in the off chance ill get into K lab (also, i literally know nothing abt UNT so if anyone could educate me on like the likelihood of me being/getting into/how to get into K lab id be greatly appreciative) but the only conflict i have here is the fact i probably wont get into a good lab - ive obviously done CX before (lolz) but my main focus is LD?? (and obvi the LD that i do is literally just policy but) so i feel like i probably wont get into K lab or a good lab at all based on the fact that i most likely have less CX round experience than others (and more LD rounds) plz help
  • Create New...