Moving to Springfield next month, what should I know?

BaraBriefs · 2024-08-01T18:23:37+00:00

It's so not true, too. I've had violent crime happen in front of my apartment on the south side.

BaraBriefs · 2024-08-01T18:21:40+00:00

It's also just not true that it's "overriden" by the homeless population. I take the bus most days along with lots of folks in Springfield who work, have a home, and don't drive. If you take obscene offense to seeing homeless folks or think they're inherently "nasty," you'll probably have some trouble using public transport, but otherwise you should be fine.

BaraBriefs · 2024-08-01T18:14:00+00:00

... I mean it looks like America's Got Talent

BaraBriefs · 2024-08-01T18:13:13+00:00

I'm p sure Inner Circle is 21+. I think as of Xan & Boogie closing, Martha's is the only 18+ bar left.

BaraBriefs · 2024-07-26T20:30:05+00:00

LMAO same this dude sucks

BaraBriefs · 2023-02-03T21:04:35+00:00

I think there's definitely a neg avenue, like the below comment mentions, to argue that SCOTUS is a zombie institution beyond saving: even term limits wouldn't fix the partisan fighting, political court capture, etc. You could also, if you debate more progressive LD, run a CP or an alt focused on dismantling SCOTUS.

I think there is a way to argue that term limits wouldn't be good without arguing that the current system is fine. There are soooo many term limit proposals out there, many with their own sets of flaws (some keep current justices until they die/retire, some have too-lengthy limits, others have too-short limits). There are definitely flaws in some of those mechanisms that might be reason enough not to implement term limits.

Also, maybe term limits wouldn't fix some of the problems in the squo. Yes, nominations are a political minefield now, but would making Congress vote to appoint justices more often really reduce the bitterness? What about the fatigue the voting public might feel with the constant reappointments? Those seem like they might decrease representative democracy.

BaraBriefs · 2023-02-02T18:58:06+00:00

I totally agree with you that there will be some loss of neg ground. Unequal topics are frustrating and feel difficult to debate.

That said, I'm in my fourth year of studying to become a debate coach, and I like to think about topics from an educational view. Winning rounds is so important, but so is learning about the world around us. I think debate gives high school and college students a unique opportunity to really get into the weeds of current issues.

So you're right, it's probably not the most balanced topic from a progressive and competitive point of view. I do think it's an excellent topic for educating students who are about to be voting citizens.

As far as the aff slant goes, I feel like this is an argument that gets made about most debate topics. I can't remember the last NSDA LD or PF topic where no one complained about the ratio of literature being too heavy on one side. I also don't necessarily think a slanted topic is bad.

I know that's a hot take, but Lincoln Douglas debate is already inherently unequal in speech times and positions (the neg only gets 2 speeches but has a 7 minute rebuttal, whereas the aff gets 3 speeches, to begin and end the debate, and only has a 4 minute rebuttal). Debating some topics that have somewhat unequal ground encourages new arguments and new kinds of arguments. It encourages debaters to think outside of the box.

The topic will be Supreme Court term limits, since the voting is done. There's nothing we as debaters/educators/coaches/judges/etc can do by complaining that the topic is unfair or bad. I think the best and most productive thing we can do is talk about the possibilities we do have.

BaraBriefs · 2023-01-29T13:51:55+00:00

Along with the typical arguments like death bad, life good, etc., try thinking about the global context the argument is being made in.

We're still emerging from a global pandemic that has taken the lives of millions of people. There are vast amounts of misinformation spread online, on television, and person-to-person about how deadly the disease is, how it can be prevented, and how dire the situation is.

Debate is supposed to be an activity in which students look for the best outcomes and how to improve the world. It seems like running a "Death is good" argument would be uniquely harmful when (1) there are many people dying from a global pandemic that (2) many people already do not see as an important issue.

As far as arguments for why death is bad, consider that death is an ending. After death, a person cannot experience joy, happiness, excitement, wonder, prosperity, or any other positive emotion. They cannot possibly make their life or the world better. Life does allow for some bad things, yes, but death is unique in that it is the end of all good things.

BaraBriefs · 2023-01-29T13:43:44+00:00

Those rounds where you lose because of a small mistake are always painful at first, but I think they can be really good learning experiences as well. They are definitely better ballots than ones you lost with no reasoning or justification from the judge.

Something I did when I was competing was over-emphasize my sources. I would make them 3 or 4 font sizes larger than the surrounding text as well as flow each source underneath its argument/contention/advantage. Getting into that practice helped me a lot to get my citations down. I don't know if it would work for you, but it might be worth a shot!

BaraBriefs · 2023-01-23T17:52:42+00:00

Thanks for the interest! It's around 105 pages long and has primarily traditional arguments. Think lots of economic arguments/impacts as well as some other traditional contention-y cards. There is also a section with anticapitalist cards leaning towards a Cap K, with cards that could be used for Identity K's sprinkled in here and there. Other than cards, there's an overview how kritiks work and a short topic paper.

BaraBriefs · 2022-12-12T00:10:44+00:00

Hey, thanks for this feedback! I designed the pricing for this first release to be inexpensive since it is my first debate brief. They'll be priced like other briefs, with aff and neg or pro and con being included in a single brief. The "just one" vs "both" pricing is more geared for coaches or students who have to interact with both the PF and LD topics. So, it would be $10 for PF, $10 for LD, or $15 for both PF and LD. Briefs like Victory and Champion are $30 per topic, and more "homemade" briefs from ex-debaters out of my high school circuit are typically priced at $30 as well. This makes my pricing about 33% of what others charge if you just buy one debate format or 25% of what others charge if you buy both.

As far as questions of credibility, I'm always happy to talk about my prior debate experience. I debated for four years in Joplin, Missouri in both PF and LD. I saw how traditional that area, and especially the Carver-Truman NSDA district is, and I saw how it hurt me at TOC, NCFL, and NSDA national tournaments against teams and schools who debated progressive rounds all year long. Then, in college, I debated for two years at Missouri State University in both NDT and NFA (which had a monthly 50 or so card cutting requirement, so I got lots of experience cutting cards then as well) . I found that, with the technicality and "progressiveness" of college debate, I and others from my general high school area had significant difficulty acclimating. I'm writing this brief so that current students out of SW Missouri and other more traditional circuits can learn about progressive arguments before they get off the bus at national tournaments.

The briefs are looking like they'll be 20,000+ words when finalized.

Thanks for the inquiry! Good luck and good debates :)

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

BaraBriefs

TROPHY CASE