TheTrashDebater

Do we know the result of TFA state finals, the results haven't been posted on joy

Bump, down to go neg on the immigration topic Or aff or neg on the March/April LD topic PM for either one

Ok, so I have a few major problems with considering K debate as holistically problematic- 1. Policy-policy debate isn't dead- there are plenty of teams on the national circuit that are almost exclusively policy oriented (IE Greenhill AE, MBA BH) that are still probably some of the top teams in the entire nation. It's not that policy debate isn't dead whatsoever, because that is completely false. In fact I would like to think that this topic has been rather K light on the national circuit in terms of national circuit (except for teams like North Broward MR, we see your like 6 bids). 2. I think that the conception of K debate ruining debate is wrong- this same process happened with the introduction of the counterplan in the 1980's, and the disad before that, and the t shell as well. Point is, debate is constantly shifting and coming up with different ways to interact and present argumentation, and there is nothing we can do about that. I think that restricting teams from learning about these kinds of arguments puts teams at a disadvantage for a few reasons, A- because they never learn how to cohesively answer these types of arguments which means they'll inevitably lose when they run into these types of arguments, B- they re growth as debaters are restricted, I think that preventing debaters from experimenting with the K constricts their growth as debaters into learning how to think kritikally when trying to answer these types of arguments due to a lack of knowledge. I think that K debate injects education into the debate space that we could never gain through policymaking frameworks (IE how our in-round discourse undermines others or has dehumanizing implications) which require the K within the debate space. I was told a story by the UTNIF LD camp curriculum director, Jana Harrison (who's action I in no way, shape, or form condone for those of you who have heard about the completely inappropriate things she did with her students, this is just an anecdote that was given to us about the injection of the K into Oklahoma debate) about a certain team that would always use horrific and abusive language to the other team before round in order to intimidate them, which gave ground to run a K about how their demeanor and language were a tool of the patriarchy in order to conceptualize a submissive, feminine subject. Which also proves that the K is a tool that is critical (pardon the pun) in order to confront and combat completely abusive practices within the debate space. Along with that, the K also exposes us to critical theory that would be unbeknownst to us otherwise which also allows for a deeper philosophical education and promotes the free exchange of ideas among debaters (I personally think that methods debates are in fact one of the most educational debates that could ever occur in the debate community. 3. This doesn't mean that K debate at times can't be problematic- I think that trading off learning the foundations of debate (IE the stock issues, how to go for T, a counterplan/DA) with learning K debate is bad because it prevents debaters from being able to form coherent arguments (I know this from personal experience with novices at my school), which is why I agree that policy-policy debate has its place and importance in the community. I also tend to disagree with the way some debaters tend to frame K's (IE the "They mention money= they're capitalist pigs" is completely misrepresenting the literature which it derives from, or the "using ad homs within the literature 'such as calling your opponents homophobic when you're running queer theory when they in fact did nothing related to homophobic in-round discourse' to substitute actual args" example which I completely agree is bad for debate. That being said, that's A- a very, very, small amount of people who do so, and B- just an issue of framing the argument and using that as a reason to completely dislike K debate is bad because it misrepresents a good K round. Next I also think that K debate is legitimate in the circumstances of 1. discourse K's (IE security, language K's) and 2. when structural K's (IE Baudrillard, Queer Theory, Deleuze, Cap) have a legitimate link to the action of the aff or the resolution because they ensure further topic engagement that delves into the critical side of the resolution 4. If you really dislike K debate so much, just learn how to beat it- coming from a mainly policy school, it took me time to actually find out the proper way to answer K's, but once I did it was rather easy to beat them back if you knew what you were talking about. For example, a good strat if you were running a hard right policy would be going for framework and the perm in the 2AR and winning that extinction outweighs the K so vote aff. Next, if running a soft-left aff, would be to use some sort of perm and a link turn off of the aff along with a state good warrant. There are many ways to beat back the K, it's just a matter of you learning to get good at them and winning on them. I agree with Nick a lot on their post, I don't think that you've developed a sufficient opinion on K debate because everything you are saying is based on you not being the greatest at execution of critical strats, which is nothing to be ashamed considered it's not as easy as it looks and it's not for everyone Now, I also agree with Nick on the conception that a book only worsens the publics perception of debate which only spurs further backlash and hurt our ability to recruit new members which means that the activity would die Now, I am happy to elaborate my opinions on K debate more, just message me and I will happily answer any questions y'all have, Sorry if this post is incoherent, I'm really tired seeing as it is 1:11 AM where I live edit: changed to use correct pronouns, I am deeply sorry for any harm done and will do whatever necessary to make it right

For 6A, I think granted that Hendrikson GS is in the pool, they win the entire tournament this year. This isn't just me being biased either, but also Hays CF means business as well. They are a team to look out for

Greenhill AE, Hendrickson GS Both are gonna go far again, GS seems to be kicking it up a notch this year and AE good lord are already taking names and bids left and right

cap there's links to fem on analysis about how Baudrillard is sexist as heck There's links to race K's because of analysis about how Baudrillard is racist

Don’t exactly quote me because I’m not the most qualified person on this. But it’s a matter of 1. How could your cap good evidence is and how you’ve debated that, if you’ve straight just won that put some minor defensive args on the link sheet and just weigh that the risk of cap being good outweighs the risk of a link, and 2. How could of your link args are, if you have bad link args, you aren’t gonna get very far in the debate imo, read a bunch of reasons cap is good and put some defense on each of the links, then weigh that the if there’s a risk of a link then that’s a good thing because it triggers your cap good stuff but be careful not to make so like there’s too much work on the link sheet, because then they could drop the K, use your answers as a way as to how you access cap good offense and say that voting neg is key to preserving it (probably a dumb arg but it could happen)

I wish you the best of luck, from what I've heard is that the panhandle and west texas house the majority of what constitutes as lay debate

Take a moment and look over the question you just asked, and then re-ask yourself that question jk, its Uber trad

Um just clarifying couple of things I said- 1. You don’t have to ask pronouns but you should definitely check the way you phrased your response to the question because it sounds like you didn’t care about them whatsoever 2. Don’t make immigrants portrayed as terrorist, it’s not good and is 1. Exclusionary to those groups and 2. Probably racist

Ok, so I have a couple of issues with both sides of this debate- 1AC: You could probs deal without the opening statement, doesn’t really add anything to the 1AC Not really sure how ending chain migration is topical since the res wants the US to reduce its restrictions? Not really sure how illegal immigration is an impact as well? Your card on terror has like 0 warrants Also, this is probs me being a somewhat progressive debater but like, don’t portray immigrants as terrorists. That’s probs demoralizing, if I were you I would not use that impact or I would shift the language of the case to avoid that (the first of the two is better). I also don’t know who the heck any of these authors are. Like, please put in their qualifications, the title of the article, the date you accessed it, the date it was published. You could resolve a bunch of your planks with one simple phrase: ”I reserve the right to clarify any of the specific mandates of the plan in cross-examination” 1AC CX- Ktyler, I think you were being a bit rude, I understand the passive aggressive approach but like if you debate on a traditional circuit then you should know that pulling stuff like that could get you voted down very easily I think that the neg’s questions could have been more offensive for example ”why do we care about illegal immigration?” or ”what is the proven link between chain migration and terrorism” you really should've pushed the aff on the impact level questioning Also this may be me once again coming as somewhat progressive debater but Ktyler I would advise you to not say- “My pronouns shouldn't be a concern, we're here to debate” I respect all political views and your right to hold and express them but pronouns are an extremely important topic to some people, I may be misinterpreting this and I’m sorry if I am doing so but you came off as if you were trivializing the subject, so I would advise you to reword that if you say it in the future. 1NC- The DA the DA also needs only one link, choose the one that gets you the best impact scenario you don’t need to label the individual parts of a DA, it wastes time Other than that it was ok The K You don’t need to explain what Set Col is in the 1NC, save that for the 2NC in the overview i think you need a better alt, refusal is ok but when you go up against a good K team refusal alts are really weak. The white scholarship link wasn’t necessary nor does it really link? You don’t need the last bit of impact framing at the bottom, make that in the 1NR probs You also don’t need to tell me how it’s mutually exclusive in the 1NC What you do need is some care args 1NC CX- Never say “so called genocide” of indigenous people please Neg, don’t use caps lol it sounds like you’re shouting Aff you were really aggressive in this, especially with this statement- 6: I can characterize the round however I see fit based on what you say. I only need confirmation on your claims to a racist aff case and team. Also dont say anything is a pointless arg plez that’s disrespectful Don’t ask them if they’re gonna be running a CP in the 2NC, that just wastes time 2AC- On the K I think that the 2AC really undercovers the K, it doesn’t so much as question that the material action of the aff itself is colonialist, but so much as the ideological underpinnings of the aff perpetuate settler colonialism which you have to engage in the link level debate, discuss the warrants of the link and extrapolate reasons why that isn’t the aff, you start this but you don’t give warranted reason why the aff doesn’t link That means the K doesn’t have to be a unique description of the status quo You also concede the framing question, the impact debate, as well as the alternative MAKE A PERM PLEASE, sorry just like that’s one of the most important parts of an any advocacy versus advocacy debate Brain drain- i mean it was ok coverage, you should’ve pushed more on the link level debate and it would have been better because it’s risk of a link at this point case was ok rehash was unnecessary and that time could’ve been used for you to make more offensive arguments 2AC CX- questions were meh, make them more offensive Some of the answers came off as rude and could have been worded better (I.e. “I will abuse that point until I win) Also the cards thing was actually realllllly unnecessary And then one final thing about the CX of the 2AC was this answer that the aff gave, that was unnecessary, i don’t care if you think the negs links are bad, that’s for the judge to decide and vote on 2NC- K i mean, nothing really pops out on it, you probably could have extrapolated more impact explanation and you should probably have an overview of the K, you should have more analysis on the link level debate, try to formulate analytical links Give me more analysis on the question of framing because you barely covered it in the 2NC 2NC CX- Make more questions on the actual thesis of the argument and not just clarifying factors that aren’t that important to the content of the K Both sides flared up and were rude here, I get that debate can be frustrating but taking it out on your opponents has no excuses Also no cursing lol, debates a competitive forum Also to the aff, don’t try to make an arg in CX (questikn 12) Tbh I would’ve voted neg, not because of the way the round went down but because the aff really mishandled the K in the 2AC and I don’t think that with the job the 2NC did on it that the aff could have won but to both debaters, just keep level headed in debate please in the future.

Alright y’all I’m back ready, ready to throw down on neg on the immigration topic

Do y'all mind if I add some comments as well?

I’ll flow the round and drop an RFD if y’all are ok with it

Thanks, what DID you think of my response to the solvency arg that the neg was making, did you think I was handling it well?