Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cx checks'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive


  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL


Google Chat/Jabber











Found 2 results

  1. I'm running a cap K, and I have some cards that say that the left uses dialogue as a way to prop up the upper class hegemony. I also have a CX Check and an "RVI good." I know these are spikes, but where do I put them? Are they underviews, or should I have them randomly at the bottom of the case? EDIT: I'm in LD EDIT2: K aff. Whoops
  2. So I used to have a longer cx checks spike, but since then I wrote a newer, shorter one (that I wanted to be easier to miss ) after I saw a friend's. "I may concede to clarify, modify, or kick arguments if neg reads their interpretations in CX, otherwise assume I meet because I might have stopped the abuse in the round and allowed more focus on substance debate. Also means they don’t care about stopping the abuse and they promote theory just for its strategic value so vote them down as a meta-theoretical issue." (I have an "all neg theory is drop the arg" spike that I plan to read alongside this.) Does the meta-theory part work? I'm not actually sure how meta-theory functions, is it written in a shell format? Can a voter be "bastardization of theory" or something? I do LD.
  • Create New...