Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About Shield9

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    Gregory L Quick
  • School
    Eagan High School
  1. Honestly I think that was a good list. Start on some of the things that you think you can implement right now but also put out the ideas you have for the community, ie the sticker competition should be started soon for people to make as many stickers as they want. Long projects will take too long for those to be prioritized even if they would do a lot. Show that you are trying to push the site so that others can also invest their time and be secure in the knowledge that you won't leave, they will get paid, etc.
  2. A Riders DA is a DA attached to something else passing attached to your plan (Riding its passage as another part of your bill) when your plan passes. It takes what is bad with the PTX DA and explouds it. You can find almost any policy that may be passed or repealed. Then that passage/repeal = extinc. There isn't a lot of prep the aff really get to every rider DA. ITs a unique poicy senario so a lot of normal ptx answers won't apply. You can say your plan is bipartisan but even then it doesn't really prove that nothing will happen to the other policy. anything to the DA. To answer best you have to respond specifically to the policy but its unreasonabl to say that you can prep against everything. The best you can do is get impact D and turns then make a crap ton of analytics so most people dislike them.
  3. If you really wanted to get as far into it as you can on the word level, creating a heirarchy of words that you would underline or words that will underline the sentence after the world. An instance of that is that 'therefore' is word that is probably important. The word shows the conclusion sentence where most people get their final hooyah which is most important for policy debate but the word 'therefore' is unimportant to highlight. Past that I don't think that being completely grammatically correct is key to reading, but there is a fine line when a card becomes unreadable. You could also over underline a card, trending on the over underline/emphasis/highlight then have the person going to read it select the best warrants and actually highlight those. If you really want to do the best perhaps doing word analysis on some big files from camp would get the most common words and utilize those. Doing several instances of how the program will highlight would allow for experimentation so chasing only one would be bad even though it would take a lot of work. This is actually amazing and you have done so much work. I think a lot of people would help you out, especially with how nerdy the debate community is you probably could get a lot of programmers in on this.
  4. The best way to fight against it, especially if it is just straight 2 plans, is to run a pic of one of them and then run a DA and case turns against the other. Lets say Overturn Milken solves for one impact, lets say disease, and congress redesigns funding schemes solves for another impact, lets say democracy (realism doesn't matter here). Run an impact turn to disease, or Internal Link turn. Then run just do congress redesigns as a pic. Then run courts DAs like hollow hope, court elgitmacy or whatever you want on open ev. The CP is competitive because of the net benefit of only using congress and not trying to solve the plan. They might say pics bad but thats not a debate that they should win unless you drop it. Theory files exist on openev that have answers
  5. I like to reference the authors of their card while still on my speech doc without alt tabbing then finding the author on their 1NC Author (in the 1ar I reference contrasting authors) that way I can save time and make good speeches. If people don't do that then yea don't flow I guess but thats me
  6. I entirely disagree with oyu. I don't know why your flowing is so slow but I can flow faster than anyone on my circuit can read. There is only so many cards they will read, and you should have blocks to most things/ find it on open ev (download all of open ev. Then have answers to blank DAs, CPs, and Ks that are blank.
  7. I'm saying that the real debate starts when they read a card in the 1NC, it hurts you to not know the position throughout the debate so forcing yourself to write it down prevents you from forgetting it. You can start card comparison whenever, the earlier is better. The 2AC as an opportunity to do warrant extentions that can answer several postions instead of just saying the card tag and author doing more work helps the 1AR and incrases your chance of winning.
  8. If the alt can solve the status quo, then the tiny drop in a bucket link wouldn't affect the alt solvency. Either the alt can't solve in the current neoliberal world or can solve in the world of the perm. Some judges hate it, a senior in college judge I had said that more K people wouldn't like it because the K isn't actually saying that the alt would solve the problem just that there are atlernative things we can do that don't participate in a bad system. Most high school debaters don't explain it that way (which is more epistemological-[how we use our values]/ontological-[ways that we think/values that we hold]). Most people explain it that we should actually do something to kill the neoliberal or other system. That was very confusing and very extreme kritik theory so don't really worry about understanding it just ask a coach.
  9. I think that you should flow the entire debate, you don't know exactly what you are going to say and depending on your computer to reference earlier card slows you down (or me at least). In general, how much time do you spend flowing versus making the speech doc? How long does it typically take for you to compose a 2AC or 2NC doc? I don't make it a specific time to make, I think that you should organize your files in such a way that you can esily find the AFF and the Neg files (I seperate them into AFF and Neg compilations to make offcase easier and open less/have better scroll economy. Means I don't have to scroll to the bottom of a doc wasting 20 seconds when I can just open the Aff files for the 2NC or the Neg files for the block. For me it takes about 20 seconds per postion but again setting limits will just increase stress. Create individual docs for each offcase position you like, write some overviews and organize files well, like pervious people have showed how. Thats all you need to do and then just find each one and use verbatium to tilda (~) it into a speech doc. Its a verbatium trick that you should look into to make making your speech doc faster. How many of your analyts are typically prewritten vs written in the round? I write specific analytics during the round right next to their arguments, and I have most theory memorized that I only write down to go faster if I think it might be in the 2NR (for both the aff and the neg as I am 1A and 2N). Things like overviews you should write before the round and you should understand your offcase neough that you could give me a summary wthout needing anythings else. I probably should still write your analytics in after round but I don't do that sadly. In general, how much time do you spend flowing versus making the speech doc? How long does it typically take for you to compose a 2AC or 2NC doc? I flow every card that they say outloud, then I go back to my computer to open files. My computer takes some time doing this so I just continue to flow (I am on a spreading circuit with not parent judges). I am good at summarizing their tag so even if its long I write it faster then they can say. I don't automatically depend on the speech doc so it allows me to be moving the mouse with my left hand nad flow with my right. I make a speech doc then tilda in specific cards that I will need for my extentions BUT YOU CANNOT MISS THINGS ON THE FLOW. Even with 5 minutes of prep the neg has the easiest way to use it, being that the 1NR doesn't need it and neitehr does the 1NC. Using 3 minutes to even 4 minutes is fine because all the prep in the round is yours. With 8 minutes you would have plenty of time to create your doc so don't sacrifice flowing just to use less prep. If you miss an arguement because you didn't flow it thats a massive problem, if you miss it because you didn't have cards on it then think of some things to say during your speech and don't miss it. So you mention writing direct answers next to theirs on the flow, would you do that and then proceed to find that block in your files or keep flowing the speech and just writing your answers next to theirs? I keep flowing the speech and writing my answers next to theirs, in order of importantance I go Flowing their arguments>Your specific analytics>getting the speech doc ready. The same reasoning as earlier when I talked about the amount of prep you have means that I have enough time to get the speech doc even with 5 minues of prep cause you (as the 2N) will be the only person that should be using prep on the Neg side. Also, when I'm 1NC, should I flow out my off-case, like all the cards for a DA that I plan on running or should I just put like the Title( i.e. Politics DA) since I'm aware of the cards in the 1NC for it? I wouldn't even preflow unless you really know what you are going to sya in the 2NR. Before the round/asap after selecting what the 1NC should be then you should have an idea what the 1NR should be. I like getting my partner to go for offcase offensive, like DAs or Ks to create more offense for the 1AR with less prep. Creating new impacts in the 1NR is really powerful becuase the 1AR doesn't have enough time to read impact defense (although if they read impact turns then you have to defend against in the 2NR, maybe even reading cards if its a good turn). Just flow the arguements that you are going ot get to in the 1NR as backflowing that much would be bad, or even just have your partner flow for you. Flowing the cards doesn't do a lot unless your unprepared as you should have an overview that references all of the authors anyway. I disagree with Solax as the real debate starts the instant either side starts reading a card. When you say "no alt solvency" its very helpful to say that their _____-(author) card doesn't actually say this would solve or their ______ card points out some problems in the status quo but still overall resolves that capitalism is good. Its very helpful to do that and alt tabbing to their cards for the author takes too long. What are you doing during that time? Just avoiding using prep when you might lose, even if you lose 1 out of every 25 rounds because of some problem from not flowing why would you take that risk when you are just being lazy (could be applied to me not writing down analytics in post round but shhhhhhhhhh). The Snowball will correct anything that he thinks is wrong but that's my style of debate answering all questions on this thread. I agree with what he says though in practice maybe some minute things might be changed. Overall practice flowing and spreading at the same time by having a practice debate with your partner on your aff ie read 1AC, then create 1NC, and then read 2AC to it etc etc. It helps cause you have to debate both sides and forces both sides to flow with everybody practicing their speeches. Redos are also good but require a good flow from the beginning of the debate.
  10. I don't really understand this.... Alright so this is what the negative arguements are in the 1NC. For most affirmatives the arguements that Vman says to run is: 1. A T-Interp, like T-Education saying that there plan isn't increasing education. 2. States CP, which is saying that the 50 states and relevant territories should do plan instead of the federal government. 3. Politics DA, which says that plan takes PC/ is unpopular and will therefore prevent something (another bill or plan) from happening which leads to bad impacts. 4. Cap K/Neolib K, says that the plan leads to the capitalit system/reentrenches the capitalist system which leads to ecological destruction, death, lack of value of life. K's are more confusing then anything else here but most definitely ask your coach if none of these positions make sense to you.
  11. Going on Open Evidence at https://openev.debatecoaches.org/ there is a file folder(?) at https://openev.debatecoaches.org/2017/Impact+Files which has files, kinda broad, but there are files like what you are looking for. They would be from camp files for the 2017 season so maybe a little more applicable.
  12. Shield9

    Anarchy Files

    Hey my team is going back on some arguements to use against K affs. One argument that we thought would be helpful would be some Anarchy files. My coach used to run similar type files on anarchy versus totalitarianism but he doesn't have computer files. Does somebody have any backfiles on anarchy or on totalitarianism? It would be great if you have any files. Thanks!
  13. 2 things, 1, ty for card I'm going through and organizing it for each day but I have only just started, and 2 this quote is literally you saying that you have in your backfile a card on extremely intelligent sub terrestial dinosaurs who are going to overthrow humanity and are paying off the enrgy sector to keep quiet about how they are the source of earthquakes and the tectonic plates moving. Why are you a god at debate? Also 5/2/17 is also another solvency card for the private sector.
  14. Shield9


    Most of the time theory files just go with the regular education, ground, fairness, strat skew, time skew arguements. Mine looks like: Floating PICs Good 1. Education - a. Forces better case writing – makes the plan be specific from the 1AC. b. Best policy option – makes the aff defend the entire plan and is key to finding the best policy option which is best for education. 2. Ground a. Predictable – if you say something offensive, you should be prepared to defend it. 3. Representations matter – key to rejecting racist slurs or arguments like genocide good. 4. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 5. No voter -- Reject the argument not the team. I don't know why nobody else answered and hope you'll get it before too long.
  15. I agree with the underlying arguement, but theoretically its not regressive because you can't make a bad counterinterp apply to multiple things. If its non-resoutional than its just not predictable and kills ground while something grounded in the resolution that allows for some wiggle room to apply to all K affs, becoming applicable in every round. That means it spreads outward from that round infinetelly into a regressive form of debate. Does that make sense? I'm literally splitting hairs here on your argument but its a tiny line that can matter in debates, because sometimes you want to say their counter interp is unfair and not infinetely regressive counter interp because it would be harder to argue.
  • Create New...