Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'theory'.

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 54 results

  1. I have seen a lot of people running disclosure theory in my circuit. I don't think my partner and I are going to disclose our Aff on the wiki, but we would be willing to tell our opponents what we are running before round. How do we get around that we should've disclosed on the wiki. P.S. We use paperless debate, so we have access to laptops
  2. I am very new to theory arguments, I knew a little about them tell I did mass research on them for the past couple of days because of my surgery. Anyways if permutations are just theories in policy who's to say the negative cannot perm. I read up and clarified my knowledge of a perm I think at least, and I have come to understand they are used to show how the negs harms should not be applied as an argument based on the grounds that they can be solved by just combining both plans. Especially a article in 2005 I read from some guy ( I could pull up author if you want and link) stated that perms started from some essay talking about the theory of a perm argument in like the 80's. Anyways he argued you should argue against the neg after you perm them because a perm doesn't mean you will do it literally its just a way to show the judge that you can easily solve there harms as I stated before. But what is stopping a neg cp or k from perming a aff for the same reason a aff would? These are some questions I have that I would appreciate if someone more advanced cleared it up because I started to think about making neg perm argument but I know I need peer review before I give it actual consideration. Thanks
  3. EDIT: someone sent me a file, thx anyway
  4. what role does fiat play in a ptx debate? any info is appreciated
  5. So, I'm a lone wolf doing LD on the national circuit, and I heard that the best ways to succeed are to a) get really good at theory and b)specialize in something. So I'm just wondering, how do I figure out what I specialize in? And do any of you know any good resources for learning the nuances of theory/T debate?
  6. Who's planning on going to XDI this year? Also, to people who have gone to Xylum before, how was your experience while you were attending the camp? Xylum has a reputation for being very critical-heavy, is this true, or does the camp diversify its argumentative variety?
  7. Lately, my team has been doing practice rounds to prep my partner and I for an upcoming tournament. All the varsity debaters on my team, however, don't debate in the same style that the people I hit usually do. One major difference is that 1) They run k's, and 2) They spread (irrelevant, but it helps describe what kind of people I hit.) So, most of the things I've been dropping to are K's. So how does one effectively respond to a K? How does one have offense to a K? I haven't run a K yet, but I know the parts to it; I would really like to run one (that isn't cap) at a circuit where the majority of the judges can comprehend K's (not UIL). Can someone also explain what "the story of the link" means? Also, theory. I could use some help with the gist of theory, too. Thank you in advance!
  8. Does anyone have 3NR theory? and I mean a 1NC shell and extensions into the 2NR. Willing to trade pretty heavily. PM for details
  9. EDIT: someone sent me a file, thx anyway
  10. how do I run a wifi theory properly? I hear it can help you win rounds easily. I have a copy and im not sure what to to say in cross examination. WiFi Theory.docx
  11. Akhil


    Does anyone have a LSPEC block I will trade it for a very good sunset CP file or Courts CP or ableism K. Thanks
  12. So, my partner and I run embargo and we hit effects T almost every aff round. We can't find ANY answers to effects T. Anyone have any advice? Whether it's cards, logic, etc.
  13. is disclosure k a legitimate argument// do people still run it also how far in advance of a tournament are you expected to upload aff cites
  14. I know how to run theory, i just don't know how to pace it out. I want to get through it fast in the 2ac but not under develop it. What do i do? (if ur cool you will put in 2ac blocks
  15. So I run neg against a local team and they always run the perm - methodological pluralism. The specific tag is "Perm – methodological pluralism combines multiple schools of thought to reclaim IR as emancipatory praxis and avoid endless political violence." How do you answer this? Can you say they sever out of advocating for their own plan text? I specifically ran cap and security k against this team, both times losing on this perm. Anything will help!!
  16. So I've been watching and (trying) flowing college rounds and I'm having a hard time flowing theory. I can get tags and stuff down without a problem, but when they get to Condo my flow just disappears. I usually can't get all of the standards down and I don't know where to put the theory on the flow, whether it be on the CP, K flow or on a separate piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks!
  17. Hey everyone, So a while ago, we lost a round against the "Chairman Mao K" by Milpitas DP Here's the round report from my wiki, we were aff 1AC- Kritikal Middle Passage 1NC- FW/ T/Race Binary K/ Chairman Mao K/ Batman K/ Case 2NR- FW Chairman Mao K Can someone explain what the Mao K even says, I was confused in round, and we apparently misunderstood the K and made it worse for us. Judges said the Mao K was a major solvency deficit to the aff
  18. One of my debater buds told me it was severing out of the timeframe because they don't pass at the same time and also made the Alt and plan noncompetitive, but I wouldn't qualify him as a reliable source.
  19. First, I am wondering how the neg would respond to the aff trying to perm the alt? I.E aff runs arguments that very clearly relate to capatalism but perms the alt that socialism is the answer OR, and more to my inquiry, if the neg runs a k on the langauge/framing the aff uses as morally bad and the aff either perms and says "aff will just adopt alt/fix language/paradigm." I see this as kinda unfair bc it isnt like a perm to a cp; it is literally the aff realzing they lost on the k and using their own concession as a way to dismiss the k. Also, can the neg run a ROB in the 1nc? Seems kinda abusive, bc the aff never gets real chance to engage?
  20. I am noticing forums on CrossX in theory talking about perf con. What is the difference, if there is one, on con and perf con?
  21. how would a debate play out if the 1ac stands up and says nothing? this happened last year during semis at a tournament in Chicago; the aff said nothing for their 1ac, the neg replied by saying nothing in their 1nc, the aff then read cards in their 2ac saying "silence good," and neg still stayed silent; the 1ar read more silence good cards and the rest of the speeches were silent. the neg won because they were more silent. in the situation above, would the best method of action for the aff be to turn their case and say silence bad? is that even possible? how would you be able to win aff on this strategy? my partner and i are considering this at a scrimmage, but we don't know how we would possibly win with this strategy or what to do if the same situation played out. if we stay silent for the entire debate the judge would vote neg on presumption, right? are there any cards/case files somebody could link me to? we are very interested in this. thanks!
  22. I am debating LD this year and I am currently working on constructing a theory file. So far, I have a bunch of blocks for arguments like effects T bad, limits good, conditionality bad, etc., but I'm worried that I still won't be able to answer certain theory arguments on the national circuit because I don't have answers/don't know what they are. Can anybody give me a list of the major LD theory concepts, or link me to a place where I can find them? I did policy for a few years, so I know some of those, I just need LD-specific stuff. Any help is appreciated.
  23. I do LD . Our school is having an internal practice tournament, and our coach distributed a "skep triggers bad" shell to all the participants. I had an op metaethical with a skep trigger (contractarianism checks motivational internalism, otherwise no universal morality), and I want to be able to beat back the shell, which people will no doubt run. I've attached the shell. How would I counter the shell? Could someone give me a counter-interp, or at least point me in the right direction? Skep Spikes theory.docx
  • Create New...