Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'topicality'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

Categories

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

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Google Chat/Jabber


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Name


School


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 26 results

  1. I'm writing an aff and the main argument that's run against it is T-its, Now we've defined " its" as association with a federal agency, but now my partner and I don't know how to argue our interpretation is better. Any help is greatly appreciated.
  2. 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?
  3. Akhil

    LSPEC

    Does anyone have a LSPEC block I will trade it for a very good sunset CP file or Courts CP or ableism K. Thanks
  4. 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.
  5. Hey all, I'm starting a V Debate Tourney, pm me if you're in.
  6. Also, if someone has a shell that would be excellent too!
  7. I've had people tell me it can, and I've had people tell me it can't. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!
  8. Would it be topical for me to run a plan that non-militarily develops the ocean but uses the resources gathered to benefit the military? The actual development of the ocean is non-military, but the effects would help the Navy.
  9. Hi All, This year, many arguments were released saying that "engagement is conditional." I'm confused about this - does this mean that all "topical" affs (according to the NSDA resolution) are untopical? Thanks, AmAsKh
  10. Version

    Hello everybody, This is a file of framework cards I recently cut that should be useful against critical teams with no plan texts or otherwise untopical affs. You're bound to get alot of mileage out of this file as it can be used year in and year out against the aforementioned untopical teams. This file will also be useful if you are affirmative and debating critical teams. This file consists mainly of cards written by Neil Butt, a debate coach from Vanderbilt University (last year Vanderbilt had team ranked in the top 16) and Nathan Stewart, a debate coach from Illinois State University. The cards are extremely high quality as they were written for academic purposes and extensively reference studies that have been done about the benefits of policy debate. The cards by Butt and Stewart cannot be found in camp files; to my knowledge I am the first person to have cut these articles. Not that it matters very much in framework good/bad debates, but many of the cards in this file are relatively new (from 2010). In this file you'll find cards to defend limits, predictability, role-playing, and switch side debate, which you'll find very useful as explaining the "impacts" to these concepts is one of the most important parts of framework debates. There are also answers to common arguments made by critical teams. Framework Good. 1 Debate K2 Critical Thinking. 2 Debate K2 Political Engagement 3 Debate --> Social Change. 4 Limits Good/Depth > Breadth. 5 Limits Good/Depth > Breadth. 6 Predictability Good. 7 Policy Focus Good. 8 Policy Focus Good. 9 Policy Focus Good. 10 Policy Focus Good. 11 Role Playing Good. 12 Switch Side Good. 13 Switch Side Good. 14 Switch Side Good. 15 A2: Ballot --> Change. 16 A2: Ballot --> Change. 17 A2: Debate Class Solves Education. 18 A2: Debate Excludes Women. 19 A2: Debate --> Coercion. 20 A2: Debate --> Marginalization. 22 A2: Flow Bad. 23 A2: We Won’t All Be Policymakers. 24 My name's Jacob Justice. I'm a 3rd year debater for Wayne State University, where I've broke and won speaker awards at multiple regional tournaments. I debated 2 years in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan. I'm currently a coach for West Bloomfield High School and last year I coached Brother Rice High School at the TOC. Happy debating, Jake

    8.00 USD

  11. So I run an aff that is unique and I am not sure what my counter T standers should be. If anyone has suggestions thanks for your help.
  12. I'm a debater in Indiana... so we're a bit behind. Anyways, some teams who went to nats said it is untopical to hire, i.e. judges, lawyers, etc. Should I listen to them, or did they just tell me that to have an advantage over me?
  13. Hello there! I openly run solar desalination as an affirmative, and I (understandably) run into Topicality every tournament. Note, the arguments are typically not very strong (I hit interpretations centered around 'increase' and 'its' when my actor is NOAA and The Dept of Energy). I do worry about hitting modifiers of the word 'oceans', since desalination plants aren't technically submerged in the ocean. Any ideas? Thanks!
  14. I've been looking through files and files and my objective is to get enough cards for every major standard and compose a master standards file of sorts. For every file I look on, there aren't any/many cards on grounds but everything else has a bunch of cards on. If anyone could point me in the right direction that'd be great.
  15. How many of you independently run FX or Extra T in the 1NC, and if so, how do you phrase it? In the other T thread about T in the 2NR, I saw a few things about "they're still FX/Extra T", but can it be run as an independent argument? I've just had a few judges in my circuit saying they would have voted on extra T against some affs because they truly think they are, so I just need some blocks so I can make the argument well.
  16. Hi everyone!!! I was wondering if anybody knows of any good sites that have video lectures on advanced debate arguments, specifically theory, or if anybody has any good links. I've been searching for some but haven't found many other than what's on YouTube. maybe I'm just searching wrong but any help would be appreciated! Also FW too!! thanks, trev
  17. Hi All, Was planning to run a kritikal aff for my first time at my last debate tournament of the season. The kritikal aff is going to be like the Agamben/Foucault kritik, and I was wondering how kritikal affs like that respond to topicality. Are there any tricks to doing this? Thanks, AmAsKh
  18. 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!
  19. Hey all, I need 3 more slots to get to 16. I will then post the bracket. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, if you haven't yet, pm me to register! Right now- KritkallySound JulainBHS DictatorCastro Solax10 Mummyhandgrenade MartyP JaredCroitoru TheWingedDebater EndlessFacePalm Seare25 BobbyS BammyTess Aram Need 3 more to make this octos at least.
  20. Search gives me a ton of results for the opposite - reasonability good / competing interps bad. I need help with neg arguments that competing interps are good and reasonability is bad. Personally, I buy into the reasonability args, but that doesn't exactly help when you're trying to get better at T on the neg.
  21. How do I structure this into a shell? Would I still do a we meet, counter interp, and opposing standards? What should I start preparing defense for in order to defend the arg?
  22. So the general way terminal impacts on T function (I think) is that perceptions of what is and isn't topical or rather what will be able to win against T and what will loose against T will be shaped based on the judges vote meaning that if the judge doesnt vote on T the debate community will think the the aff is fine to run they will run it and affs like it and those in turn will lead to instances of abuse. This seems like a really silly link chain to me for a few reasons: Unless its a high level elim round at a big tournament no one is going to care, I dont see how prelim round 3 at X regional tournament is going to be the next step in shaping policy debate, if they say its a linear progression with each instance progressing in the change of policy then it seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what else will be changing policy (important rounds, ptx uniqueness, etc.) Perceptions of what will and will not be argued at almost entirely formed at camps and remain that way for the rest of that years resolution, any rouge affs that get run are a drop in the bucket and the odds that one of them will be made mid season based on perceptions from various rounds is super small The meta of policy debate ensures that even if enough t rounds turn out aff to cause that aff to be run a lot that same perception of it being good and thus being run of aff ensures that people will prep neg cases out for it which ensures no in round abuse. I'm wondering if any of these are valid points if not why, and if so how to use them in round to win T flows.
  23. This is probably stupid, but what do I need to do to successfully go for T in the 2NR? Like, how do I go from a shell to talking for 5 minutes about it? Please guide me to a thread that answers this if there is one, I searched but could not find one. In particular I'm thinking of running is T - Education where education must be strictly curriculum. I know that people don't go for T most of the time, but I just want to have the option to if I need to.
  24. I'm not sure if you know what I'm talking about when I say negative affirmatives, as I've coined the term myself. I was thinking of writing a case that's nearly the opposite of a typical affirmative, such as one using my negative evidence to make the affirmative. An example would be banning seismic testing in the ocean, lengthening the drill ban, etc. Does anybody have any ideas for this? We did one last year strengthening the embargo.
×
×
  • Create New...