Jump to content

XrossEcramination

Member
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by XrossEcramination

  1. XrossEcramination

    2019 UIL State

    5A Highland Park
  2. XrossEcramination

    Commodification K

    🅱️audrillard
  3. XrossEcramination

    White Nationalism DA?

    1-don't bend to the demands of white supremacists-their presentation of this logic in debate only naturalizes the attitude that these people's demands should be accepted and followed 2-thumpers-there've already been immigration bills that should've triggered the impact 3-no internal link-nuclear codes aren't under the control of white people in Congress 4-no internal link-they won't try to get nukes just because of refugees-they won't be THAT mad 5-no impact-they don't have anyone they want to nuke. They like America a lot so they obviously won't nuke it, and if they have another country you can maybe turn it. 6-Idk maybe read that twitter diversion card that people read against Trump lashout
  4. XrossEcramination

    would you read these in round?

    facts bad-no real warrants and doesn't contextualize to debate because it's mainly about "fun facts" like the example it gives of 5 presidents eating fish for breakfast-those aren't the type of facts that people talk about in debate white privilege-no real link to the aff and it's not a reason the aff should lose even if your conversation is important so it probably loses against the perm. This is just an overcomplicated structural unfairness argument that doesn't really add anything valuable. bullying k-no link to the aff except that they want to win, which you also do, so it's a nonstarter. What your link cards describe is not really what happens in most debates. This mainly seems like trying to portray yourself as a victim to get judge sympathy when there's no real violation. There's also not really an internal link to your impacts even if you win a link, because the round probably doesn't spill over and this is more of a procedural argument. Your tokenization of actual violence is pretty egregious in this argument, when you have all caps tags saying "BULLYING LEADS TO THE VICTIMS HAVING LOW SELF-ESTEERM, DEPRESSION, MALADJUSTMENT, SUICIDAL IDEATION, OR RETALIATION. THINK COLUMBINE!" because there is obviously no internal link to school shootings from them saying they deserve to win, and your claim that there is probably quite messed up. I would have a very low threshold on voting against you and giving you horrible speaks for a short aff theory argument against this. Just don't throw around suicide. Your alt and ballot arguments about bystanders are basically just poorly reasoned guilt-tripping. Also, literally 0 of your evidence talks about debate. Rosa Parks-another quite bad argument. Pretty damning when the first card says "vote him down so we can legitimately solve them by spurning action." There's a lot of amazing women in debate and you probably shouldn't ignore them by assuming everyone you debate is a dude. It's also pretty violent to use the language of martyrdom here, since the first line of the shell is instructing the judge to kill your opponents. The Wedgwood card doesn't say anything relevant to debate it's jut an example. Low risk version-again, don't assume you're debating a dude. This is also the exact same argument with more words. They're both "high risk" because you will lose the theory debate. Saying the judge should martyr them to "provide a point of community and mutual indignation" and calling the judge an "overlord" is particularly dissuasive because you're telling the judge to act as an oppressor and become hated to spur action, and nobody wants to assume that role. You also have exactly 0 solvency, since all your evidence is in the context of actual martyrdom, not losing a debate round, and losing a debate round is a much smaller thing that probably won't really have any effect unless you're in a late elim which, based on the quality of these arguments, I'm guessing you won't be. The bataille card is probably the high point of this file, but it's a totally different argument. Also, calling it "Rosa Parks" then having no discussion of that is quite tokenizing. In general, this argument has no warrants, no clear articulation of the ballot, no evidence in the context of what you're talking about, no evidence specific to debate, no real link, an unrealistic role of the judge, and some blatant sexism issues. Don't read these arguments. They are bad, and you should (and will) lose.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. XrossEcramination

    Weird args

    http://timecube.2enp.com
  8. 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
  9. XrossEcramination

    Cap Turns and General Nuances

    capitalism is a bad thing 💯
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. XrossEcramination

    The negative strategy

    1 off Baudrillard.
  16. XrossEcramination

    The Liar's Revenge

    this isn't a reason you win.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. XrossEcramination

    What new AFF should I write?

    What type of aff? K, hard right, soft left?
  21. XrossEcramination

    -

    This doesn't seem like a great argument because there's probably no way to predict exactly how many people would try to immigrate because of an aff so I think reasonability would probably win. Ground-core generics aren't dependent on a precise number of immigrants, they're just "a lot" or "not a lot" which most affs will make pretty clear, and things like base don't even have to be "a lot". Conditionality-there's not really a great impact attached to this and you don't read a card defining resolved. They could get out of this by just reading a short counter-definition and it doesn't really let them "shift" in the 2AC because they aren't trying to change their answer for how many immigrants get let in. Clash-this doesn't make much sense. The whole aff is about the material implications of the plan, and you can clash with those. If there is ground which there probably is, then there is clash, there doesn't have to be clash on every single thing the aff says because that's an absurdly high standard and you can't clash with everything. Education-this card would have to be specific to providing exact numbers which it probably isn't. Otherwise they will meet that they are precise enough. Make sure you ask them how many immigrants get let in in 1AC CX because if you don't then the 2AC can just say " we let in x people, they should've asked in CX, there's no abuse, default to reasonability" Additionally, I think that forcing the aff to specify the number of immigrants in the plan text could potentially be extra-T in some cases which probably isn't great.
  22. XrossEcramination

    Affs For Next Year(Immigration)

    What affs do y'all think people will run next year. K and Policy.
  23. XrossEcramination

    Texas Teams?

    Being able to think on the fly is a great skill, but debate is not just that. If there is no disclosure except for 5 minutes before the round then there's no incentive to ever do pre-round prep because you don't know what affs you have to prep against. And people breaking new affs or reading old affs that are modified lets people think on the fly plenty. Making every 1NC during the 1AC means that debates often default to generics and have bad strategy because you only had 8 minutes to plan out your whole strategy. Maintaining a wiki is incredibly easy as long as you regularly update it, and if schools refuse to meet this basic standard of courtesy when trying to going to tournaments and end up having trouble then oh well, should've updated your wiki. Disclosure theory is probably not the worst argument, because there's an obvious disparity in fairness when x small school gets to look at the wikis of everyone they might debate at a tournament but nobody gets to look at theirs, which means that x small school can enter every debate with in-depth strategies and answers while everyone else is coming up with their 1nc during the 1ac, which structurally favors the aff. 1-It's not a better practice for smaller schools. If x tiny school debates y tiny school and neither of them has a wiki, then they get a shallow and generic debate because neither of them had any chance at guessing what their opponents might do. Going into every single debate not knowing what could happen means that ideas won't be tested or explored as in depth as they could be if you just disclosed. 2-It actively supports the "reading bad blocks at each other" style of debate because there's usually not enough time to prep a whole 8 minute 2AC or 2NC from scratch when you only knew what the debate was going to be about a few minutes before or even during the debate. When debaters can't have lots of pre-round prep they'll just read generics at each other and not contextualize to each others arguments-look at the Fed DA/States CP debate that happened probably a few thousand times on the education topic and was pretty much the same 90% of those times. 3-You liking "the challenge of not prepping teams out beforehand" doesn't mean that everyone will do that. That's not accessible to all debaters because some people process things differently and might need more time to do pre-round prep. If you don't want to prep, then do whatever, but your bad disclosure is making the choice for other people which isn't great. If you're a small school with no coaching, chances are that MBA or Greenhill isn't that worried about you and probably won't over prep your aff. Big schools often spend the most time prepping against other big schools who they're scared of. There will also inevitable be some disparities between big schools and small schools, but not disclosing doesn't help that-if anything it makes it worse. The reason that big schools are successful is because they spend a ridiculous amount of time on prep, and there's not a super great remedy to that for small schools. It's also much better that a small school gets the aff of a big school in advance so that they can do some prep for it, even if it's limited. If you lose because the other team did more prep against you than you did against them, you deserve to lose that debate. They put in more work and they should win. An "element of surprise" might sound great against MBA or Greenhill, but what about when you hit a school smaller than yours and hit them with your "element of surprise." That's a bad and shallow debate. And an "element of surprise" doesn't really do that much to give you a fairer debate against a giant school because your aff probably isn't that different from one that they've prepped so far and they can use that against you, and they've got tens of thousands of pages of backfiles that they can apply to your aff. Yea disclosure is dope. Innovation in round shouldn't be the only standard of debate because, while quick thinking is a nice skill, there are some people who need to have more pre-round prep to get familiar with arguments, and forcing them to adapt to "innovation in round" makes their experience of debate worse and means that they won't be able to debate as well as they could have if you'd disclosed. Even if you don't disclose the entire 1AC, at least disclose what aff it is, the plan and advantages or something. Bad disclosure that only happens right before the round is definitely not more accessible or reasonable. Updating your wiki isn't "giving up your footing" it's making debate better. If the only way that you win debates is by surprising your opponents so that they don't have anything to say against you, you aren't doing good debating. The norms that small schools follow often aren't great. I've heard a lot of small school debaters say and do quite bad things because the circuits they regularly compete in are stuck in the 90s. It's not "elitist" to want to give people a more fair shot at pre-round prep. It's also not telling small schools exactly how to disclose, just that they should do it and not just 5 minutes before a round. The only reason the wiki is a great standard is because it's free and easy and everyone can access to it. Even teams that do use the wiki use it in lots of different ways-some open source everything, some put cites for everything, some just put up their 1acs. Disclosure norms that have been set up by the debate community are almost universally a pretty good thing, and getting people to follow them is great for debate. Yea emailing disclosure is fine but not as great as wiki disclosure, and this doesn't account for the people who aren't on the Dallas circuit. It's also important to have a centralized place for disclosure, like the wiki, because disclosing on a website like this or just if someone emails you isn't going to get around to as many people, because most debaters aren't on this website. If you're going to a big tournament like St. Marks and all 70 other teams who are going email you individually for speech docs, that's a lot more work for you than it is to just update your wiki so they can all look at it without bugging you. Disclosure is good people. Do it. Your small school whining doesn't really hold up.
  24. XrossEcramination

    Texas Teams?

    Just disclose. It literally takes like 5 minutes and you can easily do it after each debate or at least after every tournament. There's not a right to disclosure, but you probably shouldn't be taking advantage of other debaters by seeing what they've disclosed when you won't at least do the same. If you have a problem remembering past 2NRs there's a super easy solution to that: use your wiki.
  25. I mean, it's probably good to write your own theory blocks in a way that makes sense to you Here's how I'd do it: Violation: the aff misconstrued/falsified x piece of evidence *give proof that this evidence is falsified, such as the original article* it's a voter for 3 reasons 1-fairness-it's impossible to debate when your opponents contrive evidence because they can give authority to any claim they want which tilts the debate in their favor 2-education-you can't learn from a debate when evidence is falsified because false truth claims will be made and they likely won't be about the topic 3-argument responsibility-learning to effectively interpret and defend evidence is key to civic engagement -link to democracy or something
×