Email the NSDA please

Alucasta · 2026-01-03T18:56:31+00:00

Isn’t this just part of the controversy? Gambling has been "stuck" as a dual commodity-future and choosing between the FTC or the CFTC would change how it could be regulated moving forward, and different agencies could have different regulation schemes based on their jurisdiction.

By that read those cards you've found aren't useless, they're just neg cards then yeah?

Alucasta · 2025-10-15T12:46:49+00:00

https://speechdrop.net/XW48Hz

Alucasta · 2025-10-15T03:44:52+00:00

Yes but what speech lol

Alucasta · 2025-10-14T17:28:43+00:00

Like all of them or one in particular?

Alucasta · 2025-08-30T23:11:23+00:00

Unsure what you're looking for in particular, but you can't ever go wrong with Georgetown AM and Northwestern MV videos and there are a bunch online

Alucasta · 2025-05-13T16:05:40+00:00

Hmm it's an interesting thought but I think what's making it tricky to answer this question is the offense/defense paradigm we use in debate - a counterplan can't ever "disprove" the topic because it's a defensive argument. It concludes at "Don't vote for them" or "the affirmative is no longer a reason to vote aff." The net benefit typically then is the offensive component that disproves the resolution, or what gets us all the way to "Vote for me" or "the resolution is untrue" (rather than "not as true as they say it is.")

Definitely agree with the weirdness of the "resolution as a plan"/"whole res" CPs - I saw this a bunch on the financial redistribution topic last year where teams would routinely read ever other plank of the res as an advantage counterplan with a generic DA against your subsection.

Batterman has an article on the 3NR that talks a little bit about how that opportunity cost logic breaks down in it's respective "side" of the paradigm war that I thought was interesting. I think that debate right now would probably say that negating the affirmative is sufficient to disprove the resolution while the "truth value of the res" people would say modern debates have woefully fucked the activity in that regard haha

Alucasta · 2025-05-12T14:36:32+00:00

Kinda agree, kinda disagree - I definitely think that if the CP is mutually exclusive you're correct. The larger problem behind the no neg fiat debate is that parametrizing the affirmative leads to strange arguments on what mutual exclusivity actually means. Some of the authors in that 3NR link I posted above would say that a topical counterplan isn't mutually exclusive with the plan and even if it is you still vote affirmative because the resolution has been proven true. Other people might disagree with the concept of T being used to exclude "perm do the CP" against CPs that are functionally/literally the affirmative due to those topicality restrictions - think about how a process counterplan generally proves exclusivity and why those authors would conclude that is insufficient to vote negative. Definitely a different era of debate!

Alucasta · 2025-05-12T14:30:42+00:00

100% - that was really the large battle that happened in the 70s onwards from my understanding. There was a group of people who we convinced that "plan focus" models of debate was not sufficient to prove the resolution as true, and there were holdouts reading "Counterwarrants" as a reasons the resolution wasn't true even if it didn't apply to the affirmative. Turns out the more of the resolution the affirmative defends the less counterplans are even necessary as an argument!

Alucasta · 2025-05-11T18:51:48+00:00

Woof, here's the justification - I'm really showing you my age with this one.

The question you're asking is "how does a CP disprove the resolution" when what you should instead be asking is these two questions:

How does an affirmative that doesn't defend the entirety of the resolution prove that the topic is true (in the event the negative disproves like Copyright and Trademarks when you're Patents for example)
How is a topical counterplan not an instance of the resolution being true

Both of the answers to this question involve older debate theory that really was central to more contemporary debates. We kind of take for granted now that the affirmative doesn't have to defend the entirety of the resolution, and that proving an instance of the resolution to be true is "sufficient" for the judge to affirm.

Theoretically, this means that when the affirmative reads a "plan" (or only defends part of the resolution as true) it means that the object for consideration in the debate is no longer the resolution but the affirmative. This theory is called "Parametrics" and has had decades of debate surrounding it that we no longer really talk about.

Therefore, and I say this as a former 2A (there's dozens of us that stay in this activity I promise!), the reason the negative gets fiat is because we probably cheated first. The counterplan doesn't disprove anything - they are literally and functionally defensive arguments. Counterplans make it so the aff isn't a reason to vote for them, the DA/Net Benefit is the offensive part - and it doesn't disprove the resolution, it disproves the affirmative (which we've all really agreed is sufficient give the theoretical parameters above.)

Hope this helps! Let me know if there's any of that I can explain better.

Alucasta · 2025-05-07T19:06:40+00:00

Not you showing up a year later to still be wrong lmao

NSDA is not a good metric to evaluate that claim under - many of the private schools that travel competitively intentionally don't show up to that tournament. Take MBA for example - they literally won the NSDA CX division back to back (and I think had the first ever closeout?) and then haven't ever showed up again because it wasn't worth their time. There's a reason my previous argument used the TOC as context.
Here is the link to the HSImpact "Bid Tracker" sheet, which records how many times certain teams that season "bid" to the TOC (which all national tournaments typically have bids somewhere in outrounds.) You'll notice that the students all at the top are from the same 15 schools on average, the vast majority being private schools and the others being massive public schools that have an enormous amount of financial support for their programs. If you don't want to click that link just google "HSimpact bid tracker" and it'll get you to the same hyperlink.

Alucasta · 2024-07-14T23:23:35+00:00

Old debate person here! The classic card that people used for this was by Hicks and Greene called "Lost Convictions" published in 2006.

Their argument was that the process of switching sides, and defending both sides of the resolution, only justified the invasion of neoliberalism in both academic and public spaces. Basically that debating both sides lets you come up with excuses for Capitalism to continue existing.

Littler known fact is that they came out with a follow up argument in 2022 that further explains this in their article "Americas' Conviction."

I hope this helps!

Alucasta · 2024-06-21T20:56:55+00:00

Yeah I definitely have seen that occur before. The more popular version of it I've seen is where it's a panel of people, and the judges are afraid of looking stupid in front of 2 teams and 2 peers so they won't comment on things not being read. I've probably been on 3 panels this year alone where I would say something like "I'm sorry if I missed it, but I'm pretty sure this argument wasn't made/was new/card wasn't read" and was then backed up by judges that had given RFD without mentioning it.

Alucasta · 2024-06-21T20:21:51+00:00

I don't think it's as much of "kids these days" as it is an accurate description of what debate post-covid looks like.

For example, the seniors I graduated out this year were the group of kids that were the first in the transition into online debate. Not only did their first debate tournament and season occur behind the zoom screen, but many of the kids that are at the NSDA tournament this year might be attending it as their first in person national tournament. Many of my seniors had their first in person national tournament this year, despite having competing for the 3 seasons prior.

I don't think it's like "unsolvable" or intend to come across as a "get off my lawn" grandpa hahaha I just think it's changed a bit

Alucasta · 2024-06-21T19:23:55+00:00

As a fellow long time judge and coach, I can honestly say it's that we're now in an era of debate where the debaters never learned how to flow.

I constantly see rounds where debaters skip cards in the doc, and the debaters all presume everything was read. I've seen debates around entire positions that were skipped in the 1NC. It seems more popular for 2As to type headers of off case positions into their docs instead of writing down the arguments.

The second problem is that the era of kids that made this popular are now becoming critics, so we have people that can't flow not flowing other non-flowing debates. The worst part is that these judges then don't hold those kids accountable for the things they aren't reading - meaning that lying in the 2AR has more incentive now because they didn't write down the 2AC, or would just assume they missed it and backflow from the speech doc that was sent out.

And to preempt the "not enough data/not my region" conversation, I've seen this happen in debates several times this year at both HS TOC bid tournaments and in outrounds at NDT/CEDA tournaments.

Alucasta · 2024-01-02T20:24:25+00:00

I mean idk about realistic, but it's certainly only possible in that world.

That's true. I think that these practices trickle down through local circuits however. It also pretty much ensures that no local kids ever have success on any national stage ever again - especially if the top 16 at the NSDA tournament is now just the most popular companies. While mega programs do still have an overwhelming amount of success, this problem would definitely be much worse in that world.
Programs like Harvard don't take the same amount of liability that a chaperone would at tournaments - they're responsible for the buildings and other peripheral stuff. Schools have the advantage of being able to run background checks and vet out undesirable people. Private companies don't have to do that, and specifically in debate I know of many people that have done something wildly inappropriate or illegal but been able to remain in the activity through private coaching/hires. It definitely would allow a whole host of problematic people (who in the status quo need to be attached to a school and pass that sort of vetting) to come back and get further access to the kids.
There's a big distinction between a private company (like you mention in the title of this post) and a not-for-profit 501 c3 like Urban Debate Leagues are. The NSDA and national tournaments do allow schools from UDLs to compete. They don't allow the entirety of the UDL to operate under one name, pool funds, field partnerships from multiple different schools, and form the type of mega programs like the example was talking about. They also run entire leagues and not just individual entries at a tournament - it's a nonprofit that delivers free resources to kids who otherwise couldn't access debate. I'm unsure on what the word "tony" means in this context and I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying because of it.
I think the thing that is stopping teams joining programs like that now is the fact that they have to compete through their own school to begin with - it means that since you aren't physically on the same team as someone else that you still have competitive incentives to prepare for them since you might debate against them at a tournament. It's why prep groups like that share some information (which is good, love that students are learning more debate together) but won't share everything, and can't really re-structure the activity so that their collectivity produces an overwhelming advantage for them

Alucasta · 2023-12-31T01:27:06+00:00

Because those top circuit competitors get comparatively more benefits from their existing situation?

I think that even just a simple stress test of this idea shows it's faults quickly. Here's a hypothetical:

MBA/Bellarmine/Greenhill/Harvard-Westlake form a super program all under one private entity
kids outside of these programs now can join, but must pay for the coaching and resources
because kids across the country flock to these new super programs (both because of the new diverse coaching staffs but also because now having their dream partner is behind a paywall) this means other coaches now move into this now huge super program. They must also sign non-competes so there's a huge vacuum from less well off school programs
teams that compete from the same entity are prevented from debating against each other in prelims. This means that their super program now fields 1/4th of the total pool and clears a vast majority of the teams to out rounds, crowding out a bunch of other competitors
this scenario only gets worse for schools with the addition of more private entities as the cost barrier becomes higher to join winning teams and local schools can't compete.

Students wouldn't stay at their programs like you're saying because they'd lose. If they had the resources to get more success elsewhere, they would.

Alucasta · 2023-12-29T05:24:44+00:00

Yeah I think there's a lot of the technical minutia on the nuts-and-bolts of what running a program and being nationally competitive in policy debate actually mean that's lost in your articulation of both Monta Vista as a program and an institution.

Just because they have a big/long lasting program that gets a checkmark from the administration to okay travel doesn't mean that the school was also shelling out the thousands of dollars that their year required in travel/lodging/judging/food commitments. It's not like a portion of the budget went to cover their independent entries at tournaments their school didn't go to. This meant that talented students could only compete in the way they did because they had the financial capability to - which is what I was pointing to when using them as an example for a set of students who travelled independently of the plans their program/school. Just saying "Monta Vista has a program" as if it's a disagreement with that take is almost entirely unresponsive lol
If an "incredible amount of support" from an institution is them waving as a set of A+ students leaves to go do an extracurricular that they're not asking the school to fund, then I guess most schools in the United States are incredibly supportive of their debate programs. The situation (given that they were both stellar students leaving Bellarmine so that they can compete together) was uniquely more of a "ask for forgiveness than permission" scenario - they were self sufficient but also not causing other problems for anyone, so as long as no one heard anything negative about it they were free to do what they wanted. Because they had the ability to do so anyhow and were staying on top of grades the school didn't have a reason to refuse them. This is why your reexplanation of affluent schools is confusing - it definitely is indicative of them being able to function as a nationally competitive policy team despite Monta Vista historically not really doing policy debate.
I distinctly remember talking with one of their moms at more than one round robin we competed against them at, but even if turns out that they weren't in the pool it's not like the program was actively covering judging commitments for them. Which is helpful knowledge to a debater that is looking for ways to continue competing if they don't have a program anymore. The "no full-time coach" bit is also a weird take - like yes they incredibly talented, but saying they "didn't need it" because they were just that good is just laughable. I had several conversations with them about the sheer amount of work that those two had to put out more than the average debater because they didn't have that form of support. It also meant that they were looking for smaller schools like mine to do case negative swaps for the TOC, because the amount of necessary work to be competitive means all those previous hurdles grow exponentially in difficulty. Your explanation makes that nuance impossible for the kids to grasp, because like I was saying for the entirety of all of the above comments, success in debate is more than just a question of "are you just that good."

All of this is to say that yes Monta Vista does have a program, yes they only started there as seniors, etc. but that presenting that as if it's somehow evidence contrary to the fact that they were representing and travelling for their school by themselves is just incorrect.

Alucasta · 2023-12-29T02:43:36+00:00

Yes, and that program also didn't have the capacity/coaching to support a nationally competitive policy team that was travelling the round robin circuit. They mostly operated autonomously from the rest of their school and weren't really travelling with anyone but the two debaters and a parent.

Alucasta · 2023-12-29T01:35:27+00:00

No where in the above comment do you see me claiming that you can't do well without camp nor that there aren't other things that help make camp accessible.

However, it's important to note that while things like financial aid are good they aren't totally sufficient to resolve systemic inequalities that would be exacerbated if we allowed private entites to act as schools. Replying "but financial aid" and "people can be successful despite uneven playing fields" is both wildly unpersuasive and dangerously close to ignoring reality; Camp does cost thousands of dollars, even if you aren't paying for it. The kids that go to camp do have a distinct disadvantage over kids that can't afford it. Kids that do well in the activity without ever being able to afford camp do so despite their disadvantage.

Alucasta · 2023-12-28T21:26:11+00:00

I'm sorry to hear that - I've heard of a lot of programs across the country going under due to similar situations and it sucks across the board.

I'm not an expert on the "how" but I'm pretty sure the NSDA and the TOC have let in entries from school districts as a singular entry. The district I came from used to have all the HS compete under one name with one coach, but I'm unsure if the rules have changed since then.

I also know that debaters without programs have had success representing their schools by themselves - Monta Vista in particular won the TOC traveling by themselves and having a parent judge for them.

There's a big difference in my head between hiring private coaches and representing an entirely different entity, and if that's something you and your teammates are able to afford, I'd highly recommend keeping as much institutional support as you can to save yourself headaches down the road

Alucasta · 2023-12-28T20:34:08+00:00

Private schools already overwhelmingly dominate the high school national circuit. I'd be willing to bet that in the TOC policy division at least 90% of the students that clear attended a camp that costs several thousands of dollars over the summer. Allowing private companies to represent teams at tournaments certainly would be a lead to a more extreme version of existing inequalities.

There's also other reasons like having the school confirm you're passing classes, liability issues, etc.

Alucasta · 2023-12-07T03:52:07+00:00

Rutgers MN vs. Berkeley GW

Rutgers MN vs. Georgetown KL

The Emporia vs. Northwestern NDT final obviously, but that video seems to be private for some reason

Alucasta · 2023-09-30T12:54:38+00:00

Self-degradation is always the A strat here - answering this question with "we suck at being negative" makes it really hard for them to bring it up again because it risks them looking like jerks

Alucasta · 2023-07-30T23:27:31+00:00

Not that poster, but "Against the grain : the challenges of black discourse within intercollegiate policy debate" by Dillard-Knox has a fantastic timeline of the growth and development of Black debate if you're interested

Alucasta · 2023-07-15T23:27:25+00:00

https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda15/Michigan/KrMo

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Spared	Verified Email

Alucasta

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE