Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'education'.

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 18 results

  1. Recently, I've been having some confusion over whether I should be flowing some arguments on framework or on case against planless K affs. Here's some questions I have: 1) Should the "reps don't shape reality" argument be flowed on case, or on framework? In recent memory, I have been flowing it on case because I consider it part of the solvency mechanism of the aff. 2) How about "discourse doesn't affect social change" (which is kinda the same thing) or "discourse cedes the political to the elites"? Should these be flowed on case or on framework? 3) This is only tangentially related, but does framework need independent voters? I have never seen a 1NC framework block that says "D. Vote negative because" but I'm thinking about including it in my own framework frontlines anyway. My reasoning is as follows: (a) Standards are usually voters in themselves, i.e. vote neg to preserve discussion of topic literature - best education. So I should not have a section devoted to explaining my voters, but ( Framework impacts are usually distinct from standards ("no switch side debate -> dogmatism") and framework impacts can usually be grouped under traditional Topicality voters, like fairness and education. Any insight on the matter would be most helpful.
  2. My most recent Saturday tournament (Varsity CX at Paris North Lamar in East Texas) consisted of three debates in which neither competitors nor judges knew exactly what was going on. Why? Because every team I competed against read a complicated advocacy of which they could not explain paired with a RoB (Roll of the Ballot) framed specifically around their advocacy. The case debate was non-existent. My case was freaking drones. Now what is the problem with this? Its bad debate! If you can even call it debate. After one such round, I talked with my opponents. They told me they had been doing debate for three years (both were juniors) and that they did not understand what they had read- a psychoanalysis K. Confused, I asked why they had decided to run thee K, to which one replied "My coach said it would win, he talks about this type of stuff all the time but it goes a bit over our heads". And here we find the fault. Psychoanalysis is a complicated critical theory that is hard to grasp for even the most educated political scientists, philosophers, and physicians. So why, may I ask, do we put it in to the hands of high school students to discuss, debate, and overall butcher? My thesis is that winning has overshadowed education in what is supposed to be its one last stronghold. We write blocks and put them in to student's hands so that they win. Why? Why can we not prepare debaters to think? Teach students to respond to arguments in their way, in a logical way that makes sense to them? We must remember that it is our students who are supposed to be learning to form argumentation, not us. It seems that with the "Golden generation" of high school debaters growing up and coaching, they can't let go of the fact that its not about them anymore. This appears to be the case with judges as well. The fad of "doing work" has appeared. Filling gaps in argumentation with a judge's own knowledge or opinions is not the point of debate (YOU WILL ALWAYS BEAT THE CHILD YOU ARE JUDGING, don't worry-we know that. You don't have to prove it), a good educator should judge on whats given to them, no more and no less. Why do we tell our students they can't do something or that they must do something? "You must put uniqueness first in your disadvantage." "You can't run new arguments in the 2NC" "You must spread." "You can't spread" No, your regional biases and trends do not dictate what you MUST do in a debate round. The whole point of debate is to provide a structured round (speech length and order) while not limiting the student's creativity and argumentation i.e. if I can persuade the judge of it then I can do it. There are no rules in debate other than these (provided a few in certain circuits that dictate evidence rules and the like) and that is a good thing. It keeps debate what it is. Coaches and judges alike need to realize, debate is about the students and their education. Winning is a side-effect of good debates.
  3. Does anyone have any cards about/other arguments linking to the benefits of education on society? I want to run a pure "education" advantage, so any help would be appreciated. Edit* - The plan will be something that educates the public about the oceans, if that helps. Final plan text is not finalized yet.
  4. jp3

    K args

    The new topic over education is for sure going to be k slanted as i have hard. What K's do yall predict will be run?
  5. I'm working on blocks for a Foucault K, and I'm struggling to understand how you respond to that. Do you say pessimism good? Or we're not pessimistic? Please help
  6. context - i used to do policy at my school, but now I'm doing LD. i now have a novice team that is going to Harvard, and would love for them to do awesome to restart my school's policy team, but I can't help them all that much because I haven't been competing this year. it would be awesome if someone could post like the top/most common 20/30 affs this year so we know where to focus our prep, thanks in advance!!
  7. I'm working on a free online course to teach entry level debaters the foundations of what they need to know. Here's a sample lesson and quiz: http://www.debateacademy.online/lessons/what-is-an-argument/ It's still a work in progress but I would love to hear your thought and suggestions!
  8. giofreek

    Midterms DA

    Can someone explain the internal link chain of the midterms da, I've been doing some work trying to prep out a file but I'm confused specifically how a win on education is bad for Democrats. Am I missing something? Also, what's the best cp to run with this?
  9. jp3

    As a Novice

    So guys, I am finishing my first novice year, and want to know if anyone can relate. My record was this through all of my tournaments I went to. 3-1 4-1 1-3 1-1-2 (2 ties fml) 3-1 The tournaments where I go 3-1, 4-1,3-1 I have a partner who I boss around. control. The other 2 where I went 1-3, 1-1-2. I had a partner who was really good. Does anyone else do really well when they have a partner they can control? Also, what exactly is next years topic on education? and, should I move to varsity?
  10. what are the best 2AC args/cards answering this T arg? for anyone that's not familiar - the interp/violation says aff's can't spec federal courts because the judiciary can't legally regulate education (only executive agencies and congress) - most neg ev on this usually cites US Code 20 if anyone knows of a card that says SCOTUS can regulate education, hmu pls!
  11. What are some good policy debate books to own, what have helped you the most?
  12. ...is a 1963 essay that every student should read: https://books.google.com/books?id=5_xBX1l9kQkC&pg=PA52. (Michel Foucault's 'Discipline & Punish' would not be written for another 12 years.)
  13. giofreek

    Midterms DA

    Can someone explain the internal link chain of the midterms da, I've been doing some work trying to prep out a file but I'm confused specifically how a win on education is bad for Democrats. Am I missing something? Also, what's the best cp to run with this?
  14. Here is the 1AC. The aff was pulled from the wiki--don't kill me 1AC vdebate v2.docx
  15. I specifically don't understand the alt, it talks about queering the child. Can someone please explain? The alternative is to queer the Child – only our negation of the Child as a symbol of innocence solves endless violenceGreteman and Wojcikiewicz 14 (Adam J. Greteman, Department of Art Education, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and Steven Wojcikiewicz, “The Problems with the Future: Educational Futurism and the Figural Child,” Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 48, No. 4, PN) Edelman's critique and exposure of the Child and the Child's structuring logic illustrates that the Child is exclusionary, de-legitimising all that which is not future-focused, or which does not benefit the Child in all its innocent, sentimentalised, and decontextualised (non)identity. The Child takes up the whole frame, permitting nothing else to be seen, recognised, or thinkable. However, Edelman makes it clear that the Child he writes of is figural and therefore ‘not to be confused with the lived experiences of any historical children’ (p. 11). Rather the figural Child ‘serves to regulate political discourse—to prescribe what we count as political discourse—by compelling such discourse to accede in advance to the reality of a collective future whose figurative status we are never permitted to acknowledge or address’ (p. 11). In order to reveal the Child, and the full range of the meanings of the Child for discourse and action, Edelman (2004) proposes the ‘unthinkable’: he threatens the Child by queering it, since ‘queerness names the side of those not “fighting for the children”, the side outside the consensus by which all politics confirms the absolute value of reproductive futurism’ (p. 3). In queering the Child, these hidden discourses and contexts are exposed, and the Child is portrayed, not as the widely and easily accepted stand-in for children, but as an oppressive figure that closes down possibility and denies particularity, all in the name of a future that ‘is mere repetition and just as lethal as the past’, a future that is normatively, narrowly defined but never to be reached. (p. 31). It is important to understand, in this analysis, that to queer the Child in the name of children is, by extension, to put children in the position of the queer. This, in turn, opens up many possibilities. Yet, making the claim that children are queer may provoke anxiety, or outrage because of the reach of the figural Child. Such a statement on the queerness of children, especially in the realm of education, disrupts the innocence of the Child as imagined and portrayed. It challenges the frame that sets the Child up as in need of a proper curriculum, in need of protection. Edelman acknowledges as much noting that, ‘for the cult of the Child permits no shrines to the queerness of boys and girls, since queerness, for contemporary culture at large … is understood as bringing children and childhood to an end’ (p. 19). Such anxiety, or even outrage, is useful for our purposes, for it helps reveal the contextualised, complex, and perhaps troubling realities that lie beneath the bland image of the Child. The Child is not an innocent position. The Child is indeed the representative of positions that have been utilised politically to assault and reject those who do not support the Child. The stories that have been told about the Child have followed a narrow narrative trajectory and to take a stand against the Child is to offer different stories, different narrative trajectories, and challenges to the future. In offering a challenge to this dominant story line on the Child asks that we stand against the maintenance of innocence, for it is its maintenance that inhibits experience and learning (Archard, 2004; Bruhm and Hurley, 2004; Buckingham, 2000). This maintenance of innocence on the part of the Child is an important piece of what separates the Child from children, and what makes the political Child such a totalising force for the suppression of children. This Child is one who is always innocent, always protected, and, as the potential for anxiety and outrage already mentioned alludes to, always inexperienced. Experience taints, disrupts, and ends innocence. And yet, experience itself is a vital characteristic of learning. Thus children in schools, those who are learning, are always already in a queer position. The Child's image of innocence is merely an exclusionary political position, ‘a central reference point in a wider mythology of childhood that helps uphold an unjust moral order in which both adults and children are subject to the oppressive politics of purity’ (Davis, 2011, p. 381). To argue against the Child and its innocence is to open up that which the Child closes off, the real experiences and desires of children.
  16. Hello everyone! I have a debate meet in a few days and I do not understand the topic for policy debate at all. Please someone help me and my partner!!!
  17. What ground will the neg have for next year's education resolution? I know that there's a lot of ground for kritiks, but what about regular impacts, disadvantages, and counterplans? Is next year's topic debatable in an area that has mainly stock issues judges?
  18. Hey! My last year of high school debate was last year, but I'm really needing some help from the debate community. My friend's roommate has attempted to commit suicide and basically the university police told her that the problem wasn't that important and if she is going to harm herself to "use a clean blade." My friend and I found out that our university does not have explicit guidelines on what to do in this type of situation. Our campus police also aren't required to take a mental health training (expect for when they were in the police academy). There was a case last year during the education topic about guidance counselors only focusing on test scores rather than mental health. I could have sworn this was on open evidence, but I can't find it anywhere. We are going to propose a policy on mental health at our university. If you guys have any ideas/experiences with this feel free to send me a message! I'm trying to create the best outcome for this policy as possible. Even without the case I will be able to do adequate research, but I remembered that it had some pretty good evidence. If anyone has it/or cards that might help me pleeaaase let me know or if there is a place to purchase it! Thanks so much!
  • Create New...