Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Good

About MrWilsonCad

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/25/1980
  1. My debaters have had a horrible scheduling year, we didn't actually get to go anywhere. (We are in southern NC... about 1 1/2-2 hrs west of the coast). We have to prepare them for PF but my wife and I are both former CX debaters (I'm no one you'd ever heard of, consummate regional 3-3 JV debater). I know there are some coaches that are ok with the idea but no one is leading the cause. If you hear anything, just keep me informed. I'd love to prepare students for a policy debate circuit. Only national tournaments/qualifiers even think about putting policy on in NC, but even then... And as for the "gaming" the system, they tried it the last 2 years and couldn't get 4 teams together... (emblematic).
  2. Not only do they not have policy, it is seen as a lesser activity and the butt of many jokes... I wish we had policy in NC, I'd love to coach it.
  3. Thanks for the invite, we may look into it ($ being an issue for us). I'm still holding out slight hope that there's someone out there that might help me take the ball and run with it... I know NC/SC debate is dead (I've been in contact/judging a small bit in the area at the end of last year), but I'm trying to revive it. Just looking for anyway I can possibily do that, that's all.
  4. I am a coach at a school near the NC/SC border (in NC, Scotland High School). My school is joining the NFL and my students are entering other debate events. However, my wife and I are both former collegiate debaters and we have $0 to spend (so no national tournaments this year, unless we qualify for one). While I'm not taking anything away from the other events, my students would rather enter CX then the others (but are really into it no matter what the enter). I was wondering if there's anybody out there in c-x land that is interested in developing CX policy debate in NC (it is so bad there wasn't enough interest to even hold a qualifier last year for NFL's... we weren't ready to do it yet). Just trying to find a way to get my kids the experience they want plus grow this (arguably dying) activity. Anybody interested let me know so that we may make some effort to expand/have a tournament if at all possible. I know that the reason it's not offered is an interest level, as the officers of the 2 NC leagues are not opposed to policy debate, they just can't find the interest. Additionally, are there any policy tournaments within 3 hours drive in another state (one-day events, because of $ constraints). Thanks, and I hope there's some interest out there.
  5. It seems like everyone here has given great advice, but I have a couple of other things to say. First, if your team isn't willing to put for the effort, then I wouldn't worry about them. Research should be your #1 priority (as everyone else says). I think explaining the types of arguments with examples (backfiles/open ev. project) would be the first places to look. Perhaps showing a debate video on day 1 may help motivate or weed out those involved. Secondly, depending on your numbers (this is an especially good strategy if your numbers are smaller or your research ability is limited), you may want to scan the evidence and pick an argument you can go deeper than anyone else. Who cares if you run the same general neg strat each round if you can out debate anyone on it (the key is to actually know the argument--- it just helps to have a focus to the research). Typically a good C/P and/or a good K would be the centerpiece of such a strat. Just be sure to pick a c/p or a k that makes sense and doesn't turn off people on face for being stupid or too out there (Spark, Malthus, Zombies, Chuck Norris are all good examples of losing arugments). On the aff, you may design an aff with interesting tricks to help limit negative options (underviews that discount all kritikal or policy options come to mind). If you can construct the 1AC so that the 1NC is fairly obvious (if that's even possible), than the research burden on the 2A's should be easier. Just be sure your case can answer/turn/outweigh or otherwise withstand the more common arguments (agent c/p's, federalism da, politics/spending da's, capitalism k's, for starters) Not knowing your geography or resources, perhaps a pre-season scrimage between a local school would be helpful. This could give your team some intelligent feedback from knowledgable people (if the other team has resepctable coaches). Not knowing your resources again, (and I never used them, so I cannot on them-- except the Thursday file has been helpful to my teams in the past), if you have a lot of $, your squad may want to pay for research (there's a few cites out there just for debatge research). This gives you a wider variety of evidence that (at worst) will help with 2AC coverage and (at best) spark some interest into research a topic indepth and making it your own. Finally, like what's been said earlier, use the internet to reach out (like this). Audit is exactly right. Most (let me emphasis the word MOST and not ALL) people in this activity are very helpful. Find ones that work well with you and gives you useful information and keep in contact. Hope this helps.
  6. Possible answer to criticisms: Competition for the money means more efficiency meaning there's an increase in the total amount of services provided (which is where I think wayfreshnclean is going, but hasn't quite got there yet... still effects T, but not straight-up T). Yes the money is the same but the agencies are more streamlined to provide more/better services for person's living in poverty. My own criticisms: I can understand where the aff is coming from and somewhat how it "increases" social services. For my bit, I don't know if the efficiency gained would be a "substantial increase" in social services. That would be the T I would use-- substantial. Another issue is that I'm not sure that there's the research to back up that the popular funds are the effective ones. This aff is forcing the general public to make very informed decisions with information that is possibily inaccessible (either through lack of access or lack of understanding) to the voters. If 535 Congressmen, the president, the host of state actors and the bureaucracy can't get it right when it's their job to do so, what luck would the American public have when they have their own lives to deal with? Voters will be further moved by market forces than those in office. Seems like this supercharges a capitalism link here... How would the aff prevent the "charities/programs" from being directly funded to persons living in poverty? The aff's plan is vague on this point. What if I have my program where I just give the money back to the taxpayers because everyone is "in poverty"? That would have a lot of votes, I'm afraid. Finally, does this create some sort of class warfare? I would imagine that the middle/upper classes would vote for charities/programs that are more in line with their social goals and less in actually helping the poor. For example, this is where you get sentiment such as "needle exchange programs promote drug use," and (although an international example) the Gag Rule. Strat idea: As a C/P, there could be a great (if sneaky) strat here. Run this C/P and a politics D/A that specifically says plan is unpopular as the link. If aff tries to link turn, then c/p solves the aff better than the plan (cross-apply plan pop--- then more people would vote to increase funding above aff levels= better c/p solvency). Maybe a cohersion (libertarian-like) K (choice is always better, less oppressive) would be another add on, depending on the status of the c/p (which works great if the aff doesn't attack the plan is unpopular link from the d/a). Just a thought... Hope this helps.
  7. This is the most important part of your message, and one I haven't seen addressed yet. The 1AR is doing a great job at shutting the door. As a judge, this discussion in the 1AR makes it crystal clear that the 2NR is way too late to discuss the perm from the 2AC (most "experienced" judges would not really need this in the 1AR, but it's a good habit for lay judges especially). As a judge, I'm 99.9% sure that I would not vote neg on the perm debate as it is set up (99.9% just because you never know where a morphing takes place in the 1AR which changes the actual context/wording/meaning/etc. of the perm, which would make it slightly possible to debate the "new" perm in the 2NR). In this case, the judge's knowledge (at least for me... I see there's some discussion on this point) should not come into question... the dropped perm in the block (with the small exception mentioned above) means it's game over for the c/p. Now the neg could win somewhere else on the flow, so it's not necessarily the end of the round, but the c/p flows to the aff in the case. Who's to say that someone with name Vladimir Lenin doesn't lead a revolution? (You never said "THE" Vladimir Lenin.) With all of the epistomological kritiks flying around in the debate world, what are these "FACTS OF REALITY" you speak of? I'm just curious.
  8. ET had to be the worst. You ran around (losing energy with each step) to keep falling in holes looking for something while running away from the detective. Add in the fact that this single epic flop crashed the market (although it did open up the door for Nintendo...) ET had to be the worst.
  9. Perhaps a "rule of thumb" on the issue is that the "a priori" (in my debating days I used ontologically prior more often then a priori, but whatever) issues are ones that shift the question from Is the aff plan a good idea to What is the aff plan? "A priori" as the OP is putting forth, typically deals with representation and/or ontologly. These are questions of meaning. These Ks are questioning what the plan does. These are questions that must be answered before plan action (or, in most cases, any topical action) comes to be. Now, I agree with John in that some K's aren't a priori. These are more focused in a cost-benefit analysis like a DA or a CP (the gift example earlier is illustrative of this point). The K implications aren't taking issue with the meta-level but the actual policy level. As a judge, I do not know how a K that JUST functions as a total solvency takeout/turn can be taken into account before the case. In the gift example-- the question isn't "what's appropriate" or "what is a gift" or "what is an native american..." it's a question of solvency. At some level I can believe that the case gets some solvency (depending on the round, of course) because of the initial "gift" and I don't have much (except for maybe long-term solvency) that explains why it's not. That being said, yes there are a few kritiks that can function as both. As a judge, that blip answer of the original post wouldn't work for me. I would need to have a little explanation as to why their kritik must be the first place I look. After all, aren't all Kritiks questioning aff assumptions? That's my two cents from a person in the middle of the road (in ability, judging, coaching, and kritik/policy spectrum).
  10. MrWilsonCad

    Free Market CP

    There are loads of free market solves evidence out there (lots of HS/college topics lend themselves to free market CP. I'll wager 75+% of camps will put one out this year). Free market is Key to rights/economy/Solving. A coercion/libertarianism K or a Cap good K NB (or most generic DA/K really) works well with this CP. The problem with this particular topic is the very nature of the free market has created these ills. More than previous versions of the free market counterplan, this year you will need VERY top notch evidence that says it's the social services/government intervention that causes poverty (and there's some of that out there--- best way may be social services are what create a cycle of poverty). Hope this helps.
  11. 1. Seven 2. Godfather 3. Braveheart 4. Diggstown 5. Marley and Me (Next generation of dog movie, if I say anymore I'll spoil it...) 6. Dark Knight 7. Iron Man 8. Old School 9. Idiocracy (the first 20 minutes of it) 10. 300 11. Anchorman Don't know what you've seen/how mainstream you are or what's appropriate.
  12. One of the best ever. Are you talking with the computer characters in the party or your own created party?
  13. As a coach/judge, I will listen to presumption but it is one of those arguments that really bug me. If you're going for presumption, that's in essence saying "We did not do a good job (or at least better than our opponents) anywhere on the flow" (Now, if there's an argument to be had about the kicks from the aff affecting neg strat, or visa versa, to the point of presumption, it's a little less painful to hear). I would really really really love for a team to go anywhere else on the flow to win my ballot. Additionally, I would love to find anywhere on my flow to vote (without doing work for a team, of course) besides presumption. This is a last ditch effort to win the round.
  14. the 2nr should set up the round so that if the aff even tries to do that, they will lose. The 2nr should have some offense besides simply a c/p and provide impact calculation for plan vs. c/p Additionally, if the c/p is run conditionally/dispositionally without theory left in the round in the 2nr-- the SQ is still an option to vote for (where the presumption argument is based). In other words, unless you run an unconditional CP-- the SQ is neg ground. If the SQ is best, then the neg should win. That's the argumentation that should be coming out of the 2NR. Aff kicks plans to go on c/p turns in this case aff= L because there's no reason to vote for them. The only way that the turns could win the aff the round is if the turns are independent voters or pre-fiat/discursive turns that go with running the c/p itself and not the polic-implications, so be mindful of those as the neg.
  15. Maslow's heirarchy of needs says that basic needs must be met before higher needs (self-actualization, of which education is a part of) can ever possibly be attained. There are students who don't eat from Friday afternoon to Monday afternoon. As a teacher we definitely encourage breakfast, especailly around test time. I don't think that there is much of a solvency issue here, because the literature would agree with the plan. I haven't researched myself, but Twist_of_Fate is right in that you would need to be careful about the possible difference between "low-income familes" and "poverty"... although it might be a way to discursively break down the term "poverty"... Twist_of_Fate also makes the point of answering the plan + c/p. I do think it's a bit of a stretch in that I can imagine few, if any, d/a or k's that would not link to the c/p as bad (or worse) than then the aff does. The only thing I could think of some kritik on the discourse of poverty, which is why I pointed out the delineation between low-income familes and poverty in the first place. Having had little time to research/discuss the discursive implications of poverty (I coach a team of novices in a policy-poor area), this might be an avenue of research in which the way you frame the 1AC might discursively break down our assumptions on "poverty", which would be difficult for the c/p to capture. I have no idea how possible this is, but it's a thought. If the local gov't is the one screwing up, then that props up fed. key warrants. Make the plan have some federal action that forces states/localities to implement the program propertly. That would answer the states c/p. The issue I see goes back to the original post... Looking at the website, I cannot tell for sure if that means that 45.9 breakfast/100 lunch is the ratio of students who qualify or students who take advantage of those services. You really need to have a better, more explicit card in the 1AC to clear up that confusion. (A universal school breakfast isn't topical--- it's a program that lets all students eat free, not just low-income.) <edit> from that same site: To receive free breakfast, household income must be at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level; for reduced price breakfast, income must be at or below 185 percent. Children from households with income above 185 percent of the federal poverty level pay most of the price for breakfast, although their meals are still partially subsidized. and also on the site, with the address http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/programs/nslp.html: For children at participating schools there are two ways to qualify for free or reduced price meals in the NSLP. Direct Certification/ Categorical Eligibility If a household currently receives Food Stamps, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), or participates in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) the children in that household are eligible for free school meals. This is called categorical eligibility. Homeless, runaway and migrant children are also automatically eligible for free school meals. Children that are categorically eligible do not need to complete paper applications. Income-based Eligibility If a household's total income is below a certain amount, the children in that household can eat free or at a very reduced price. To receive free meals, household income must fall below 130 percent of poverty. For reduced-price meals, household income must be between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty level. This is called income-based eligibility. It seems as though the fed. lunch and breakfast guidelines are the same. the 45.9 breakfast/100 lunch ratio is really just those using the service, not those with access to it. If you want to continue, you now run the risk of coercion (forcing low-income students to eat breakfast). I really love the idea, but I don't see how you can make a plan that's topical and inherent, though I'd love to see you try.
  • Create New...