4 ms·
As someone who ran highly kritikal affs and Ks on neg - the rules aren't set, they are up to you to define in the round. Sure, you could get a judge that is sup
by linuxps2 9y ago
As someone who ran highly kritikal affs and Ks on neg - the rules aren't set, they are up to you to define in the round. Sure, you could get a judge that is super pro-policy and hates anything critical but those were fairly few and far between. If someone is trying to spread you or put an independent voting issue on something inane, critique that entire style of debate. Merely dropping an argument isn't enough to lose you the round - unless it was a fairly big IVI.
- nunez 9y agoAwww man the rounds with folks that ran Policy k’s were fun. Many didn’t do a good job of it, but those that did, oh man.
- dlubarov 9y agoIf anyone unfamiliar is interested to see what LD critiques look like, here are a few of my old cases: AC normativity K: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RTv2KtA_XBhkRQeHmC69BfTiK9X7etnHOTc9mbVTYN0/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RTv2KtA_XBhkRQeHmC69BfTi... NC analytic philosophy K: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zoPxDoFEu7-paUsK5GhTKyW6mfn-27P21upnipP5ZOo/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zoPxDoFEu7-paUsK5GhTKyW6... NC speed K: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXKYu8K4DX5DoVVnLlPxmPMfKRxJXUWAOFcwCogKZBc/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXKYu8K4DX5DoVVnLlPxmPMf...
- mathperson 9y agolol the mountain represent /\
- RSchaeffer 9y agoyee
- RSchaeffer 9y agoDo you still have your replies to the speed K? I can't find them in my backfiles
- dlubarov 9y agoI do! I uploaded it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b9lWFHuUf4FfCRZ51mAOSuzzdF6hqFTnlF28GTAscvg/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b9lWFHuUf4FfCRZ51mAOSuzz...
- RSchaeffer 9y agoThanks Lubarov :)
- mplewis 9y agoThanks for sharing! These brought back memories.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> If someone is trying to spread you or put an independent voting issue on something inane, critique that entire style of debate. Doing this in LD might fly, but in CX it's basically an obnoxious way to throw the round. (Which I did back in high school, repeatedly, with as much success as you'd expect.)
- linuxps2 9y agoBy CX I assume you mean policy and no, it's really effective. I did it for 4 years and it was rare if my partner and I didn't place and one of us nearly always won a speaker award. Nuke War impacts? yeah, I'm running Compassion Fatigue K. On AFF you better believe I'm running a kritikal case with 'dismantling patriarchy through discussion' as my primary voting issue against the ridiculous Mead cards the neg was going to bring out. All I'm saying is that it certainly can be effective as this is what I did and found great success both locally and in the national circuit
- pavel_lishin 9y agoI guess I was a much shittier debater than I thought, and I absolutely was not a good debater. I don't think I ever saw this type of thing work - maybe our schools were just in completely different skill tiers.
- Gaelan 9y agoAlso judges in different circuits are probably more tolerant of different things.
- ngoldbaum 9y agoIt totally depends on what the judging pool looks like. In a different state your strategy would have worked fine.
- linuxps2 9y agoYeah my experience was mostly limited to the national circuit and GA where the judges were typically WestGA, Emory, or UGA debaters (or debate coaches) trying to make extra money on weekends when they didn't have a college tournament
- anigbrowl 9y agoAs someone who ran highly kritikal affs and Ks on neg If debate is meant to be preparation for participation in a polity, why would you adhere to exclusionary jargon and obscure proceduralism? Of course it's fun to be an insider, as in any other sphere of nerd endeavor, but this is the rhetorical equivalent of bodybuilding with the help of steroids. Yes, it is satisfying to the competitors, but at the expense of comprehensibility to everyone else. As a non-American who loved debate growing up (but in a more old-fashioned and qualitative policy forum style), the first time I saw policy debate on TV I almost threw up in disgust. This kind of thing is why voter participation rates are so low and people hate politicians (sweeping assertions that I have no intention of substantiating today, by the way). The research and critical thinking aspects of this are absolutely valuable skills to learn. But the more technical it becomes, the more you're applying the logic of industrial production to qualitative argument, to the point of losing your audience completely. I suggest that this emphasis on point-scoring reduces the incidence of critical thinking in the population as a whole, and offer as an analogy the Selectorate Theory model of Bueno de Mesquita & Smith in The logic of political survival. In brief, this theory argues that per-capita rewards for members of a selectorate (group which chooses political leaders) diminish as the size of the group initially expands but gradually increase again and exceed the original limit as the selectorate comes to comprise a greater portion of the electorate. As far as debate is concerned, it is thus more fun at first to win the approval of a small number of insiders through gamesmanship than to please a larger general audience, but as you are able to successfully appeal to larger audiences the fun factor increases again and will eventually exceed the original maximum.
- URSpider94 9y agoIf well-formed and well-delivered argumentation is what you are looking for, then your sport is extemporaneous speaking (extemp, for short). You get 30 minutes to prepare a 7-minute speech on a topic provided on the spot. There’s no real benefit to speaking quickly and you are judged on both the quality of your arguments and your presentation style. A lot of debaters cross over and do extemp on off weekends.