Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


XrossEcramination last won the day on February 14

XrossEcramination had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-4 Slipping...

About XrossEcramination

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Knowledge Factory

Recent Profile Visitors

861 profile views
  1. XrossEcramination

    have you seen this CP?

    I think what you're talking about is an out of round dialogue CP, which basically just says that the ideas of the K should be discussed, just not in the context of a competitive debate round, because it's impossible to fully explore an idea with the time and side constraints of debate, and because the competitive nature of debate makes it hard to engage in good dialogue or education. I would advise against reading this argument, because it's not particularly good and there are some pretty good and easy to come up with answers that will usually beat it. These are some good answers 1-In round discussion is key to truth testing the aff because out of round dialogue provides no incentive to point out flaws because there's no competitive aspect-means out of round dialogue can't build effective projects 2-There's no model of what debate would look like in the world of the CP because it links to everything, not just k affs-their model would be that everyone leaves debate to talk about stuff outside of it 3-Perm do both solves-if it's good to talk about the aff at all, then talking about it within the round in addition to out of round is net better
  2. XrossEcramination

    My worst round ever

    You could've gone for DnG instead of conceding? Generally, most policy affs will link to generic CPs and DAs like Horsetrading or Canada, and you can always read those if you don't have case specifics. If they're reading a soft left aff, which it sounds like they are, you can also pair these with some framing stuff on case that's like Util good. There are also lots of Ks that link to most policy affs, so you can read something like Settler Colonialism or the Cap K and probably get a link. If none of these things link, then the aff probably isn't topical, and you can read (and hopefully go for) some flavor of T. It sounds like the aff that they're reading is probably public charge, which you can read T-LPR, T-Substantial, Parole, Canada, Horsetrading, Base, or any other number of things against.
  3. XrossEcramination

    Weird args

  4. XrossEcramination

    This site

    p o l i c y d b 8 . c o m but take out the spaces since this site blocks posts that drop the link
  5. XrossEcramination

    Cap Turns and General Nuances

    capitalism is a bad thing 💯
  6. XrossEcramination

    Links (www.) to evidence in 1nr

    You can obviously read new evidence in the 1NR. Don't like read a whole new offcase, but you can certainly expand your arguments with new evidence. You can probably read new case answers in the 1NR too, but it's better to do it in the 2NC because it gives the 1AR the 2NC CX to prep answers and clarify if there are misunderstandings. You don't need to read evidence to make a violation claim, the only reason you might need to read evidence is so the judge knows "it's in the rules that you reject the team." You shouldn't make theory arguments about evidence violations one of your main strategies, as this is a type of weak debating that seeks to avoid clash when you know you're losing, but if the violation is egregious then it's probably appropriate to bring it up.
  7. XrossEcramination

    New to Theory arguments

    Process CPs and plan plus CPs are distinct. Process CPs can win since they have a net benefit through their process, but plan plus cps don't have a net benefit since it doesn't uniquely link to the aff. Also, process CPs probably shouldn't as much as they do, since they're definitely on super sketchy ground.
  8. XrossEcramination

    Drop the team args?

    You probably shouldn't characterize the aff as a "crack whore" because that's a pretty problematic analogy. It might not always be a reason to reject the team, but it's definitely a reason to reject the argument, and if you characterized the aff in this same way throughout the debate there's maybe a convincing voter that's just like "punish them so they'll stop using this language, not voting them down for it means they have no reason to change." Also, please don't use analogies like this in debate, because it can be hurtful to people in the community.
  9. XrossEcramination

    New to Theory arguments

    The neg can make perms, they're called plan plus counterplans and they don't win. If the neg can say "do all of the aff but also this other thing" they will always win because there's always another good thing you could do in addition to the aff, and doing all of the aff and another good thing is net better than doing the aff without that good thing, which is unfair and a bad model of debate. The neg CAN make arguments that do most of the aff (but not ALL of it) and they're called PICs. If the plan was "do x, y, and z" the neg could read a PIC that said "do x and y" then give reasons why doing z is bad. That means that the neg doesn't have to worry about beating x and y since they can access all the offense from x and y, so all they have to do is win that z is bad. Since the aff has to defend that the whole plan is good (or else they sever which is bad) it means that if they can't win that z is good then they should lose. Also side note, old articles about perm theory are probably not very useful since debate and the community evolves very quickly and they become outdated after a few years.
  10. XrossEcramination

    soft lefts on the immigration topic

    please don't read this. It's just a way to get out of framework but its probably not that topical and it makes it much easier for you to lose to Ks while policy people get more to run against you besides from framework.
  11. XrossEcramination

    The negative strategy

    1 off Baudrillard.
  12. XrossEcramination

    The Liar's Revenge

    this isn't a reason you win.
  13. XrossEcramination

    Answering AntiBlackness

    It matters a lot what type of antiblackness you are trying to answer, and you should answer different flavors in different ways. Warren and Wilderson (and the other antiblackness authors like Moten) have very different theories and if you try to answer them the same way then any decent antiblackness team will catch it.
  14. XrossEcramination

    Content Warning K

    I don't think content warning Ks are usually particularly strong, just because they probably link to pretty much everything in debate, and it's impossible to anticipate everything that could cause a problem for someone else. I also think that a 2AC apology is probably pretty effective.
  15. XrossEcramination

    Never seen Kritiks

    1-Framework-ROJ is to weigh plan, quo, and competitive alt-key to fairness and education 2-Perm a-do both b-aff and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt c-k specific perm if there is one d-perm double bind 3-theory a-conditional ethics bad b-vague alts bad 4-Aff-specific DAs a-alt doesn't solve the aff which causes x bad thing 5-no links (ask the links in cx so you can be sure of how to answer them) a-negative state action if you're soft left 6-link turns 7-aff solves the k (you have a k advantage so it will work sometimes) 8-Reform works 9-Cede the political DA