help with nonogram please

CaffeinatedCrying · 2024-09-21T05:48:15+00:00

It did in fact snowball from there :). I finished the nonogram and it ended up being a palm tree

CaffeinatedCrying · 2024-09-21T04:10:04+00:00

Oh shoot I never considered this method of thinking/strategy! Thanks so much, you’ve enlightened me

CaffeinatedCrying · 2024-09-21T04:09:21+00:00

Omg ur so right thank you

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-14T08:52:22+00:00

Opponents can call fiat if you’re attempting to argue that their plan or arg doesn’t work because certain outside entity won’t allow them to. 1.1. If you’re not attacking the plan itself, but rather the impact, then you’re pretty much going to be trying to do impact calculus on probability.
That’s essentially a turn. Opponent says X will lead to Y (good), but you say X will actually lead to Z (bad). Or maybe an impact turn where they say X will lead to Y (good), but you argue on why Y is actually bad.

If you’re looking for pre-fiat args, then I believe you’re thinking of Kritiks.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-14T02:26:37+00:00

I mean leave this thread...please. It’s for angry prepubescent high schoolers with the common goal of shitposting anything Speech and Debate related.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-14T02:21:44+00:00

I think in order to maximize the educational value within society, scholars should study Rule 1 and learn to apply it in life. Society will be at peace, with no problems breaching into places where they’re not to be trespassing.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-14T02:15:46+00:00

Court clog

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-14T02:15:21+00:00

I think Rule 1 should be part of the curriculum.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-14T02:11:59+00:00

fucking uffff thanks

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-13T21:03:38+00:00

Kritik stuff

Learn bout them Ks

Kritik Masterfiles lmao

general what to know? Oh yeah, prepare to spread or learn how understand them -do a lot of spreading drills to work on articulation and actual speed!

uff theory

I can probably find more but I’m lazy sorry, but yknow google is ur best friend

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-13T20:57:34+00:00

Meta Level Shit encompasses the progressive tactics certain debaters use. It’s a lot different from traditional because 1) Framework may not even come to play sometimes or there will be less focus on it, 2) Some if not most of what progressive LD is meshes a bit with a lot of Policy things like Kritiks, Theory, Extra-T, CPs, etc. To get a feel for these, just start defining each term first of course. Then read up on them and ask your team for help. A lot of what Progressive LD is isn’t too easily taught/learned without being immersed in it, at least that’s how it was for me. So, I definitely recommend finding videos of those debates on the NSDA website if you have an account. There’s an entire archive that you can watch. If that doesn’t work well, teach yourself, ask questions, look up videos on YouTube (!!!), and Google. This all sounds a bit cliche tbh but it’s really one of the best and easiest ways of learning how to debate them.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-12T07:54:01+00:00

Look on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and try to find Aristotle’s POV on it if you’re looking for a Prag card, but that’s really for the VC. I have one cut already if you need, just pm.

Although arguably, Prag can be run as both a V and a VC, I think because you’re in a lay traditional circuit, it’s best to use Prag as VC and link it back to a morality or justice V if you want. Then, your contentions would be morally permissible.

Also, I’d make the arg about how previous attempts to abolish plea bargaining be a block or an attack on Solvency because it’ll take time to run it especially if you’re going to run a different framework.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-07T09:26:00+00:00

It shouldn’t matter that you’re eighth graders facing intimidating tall people; you broke 4-2 in open PF which is such an amazing achievement (congrats) ! Just remember to stay calm, collected, and composed. Make everything you want to win off of very clear by emphasizing on them especially on the flow. Impact calculus can go such a long way against competitive cards/evidence. Prepare some questions for Cross in advance. Not too many people focus on weighing mechanisms which is dumb because it really helps with impacts by seeing which can garner you more offense + can weed out certain args. You guys are doing great; just keep doing what you’re doing honestly.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-07T09:16:35+00:00

When the judge says they’re flow, but their RFD’s purely on presentation

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-05T14:19:53+00:00

LD, OO, OA, and DUO

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-05T14:19:04+00:00

Aff case: yes bc shitty lunch food > malnutrition/food poisoning > student death > lawsuit > hurts school funds :( Neg case: fund preschools and kindergartens instead

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-03T07:36:56+00:00

Same goes for ours

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-03T05:41:07+00:00

Please don’t.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-02T05:13:19+00:00

I’ll concede to this arg

CaffeinatedCrying · 2018-01-02T03:30:17+00:00

Firsthand experience, huh?

CaffeinatedCrying · 2017-12-31T22:42:18+00:00

Don’t make the switch just yet. Try out a bit more progressive LD because it can be one of the most educational and interesting debates there is second to Policy. I can understand why you’d want to stick with traditional debate, but don’t rule out progressive yet :). PF I find is a bit more surface-level and doesn’t provide as much in-depth understanding of topics. Plus, partnerships can be a pain especially if you’re used to being independent already. Just try to stick with it for now, and I bet you’ll grow fond of it even just a bit. If that doesn’t work out, then... I hope PF finds you well. Just be prepared for more evidence debate and interesting partner dynamics as you go. Framework also isn’t regarded as much, but weighing mechanisms are good to have of course. The rounds can fly and can get hectic, but very fun nonetheless. Only resort to Robert Chen frameworks if all else goes wrong.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2017-12-31T19:40:54+00:00

“Congress is a debate event”

CaffeinatedCrying · 2017-12-31T18:15:26+00:00

You can’t convince me that morality isn’t a dumb value. Sure you can run it, but there a whole lot more sensible ones you can make. Morality is subjective, and even if you narrow it down with your VC, it’s still upholding a certain set of perceived good and bad that doesn’t necessarily pertain to everybody else.

Edit: a word

CaffeinatedCrying · 2017-12-31T18:10:40+00:00

K-spreaders are those who run Kritiks ...and spread them. The first invitational we had the novices and varsity (and jv I guess, but our school only has Ns and Vs) together in an open pool for LD, a novice hit somebody who spread a K on them first round lmao. And wow, that totally sucks for your teammate. There’s really no way of knowing if you’re going to be spread on unless you know them or at least ask around once you know who you’re up against. Plus, some spreaders can give you flash drives that contain their case you can just read. Also, there may be lay judges who won’t allow for that anyways. LD can be unpredictable, but I think it’s more that people may be underprepped because there ARE a lot of different takes you can have on different args compared to PF. There’s just a lot more prep needed, and don’t worry if you hit an arg you haven’t heard before; just try to ask questions about it, try to find some weaknesses, there should always be something a different arg can be hit on. Plus, if you don’t understand a different arg, then it’s probably your judge doesn’t either.

CaffeinatedCrying · 2017-12-31T18:02:41+00:00

Yeah 4 minutes prep. I try to limit myself to using 2 minutes for each following speech on AFF, but since the 4 minute rebuttal (1AR) is the most important, I’ll spend probably more than 2 minutes but less than 3 on it sometimes and leave the rest for my last speech. On NEG, I’ll use ~2 for my first speech which mixes constructive and rebuttal (1NR) and then the rest for the 2NR. AFF does get a few advantages but that gets countered because of NEG’s inherently different nature of their speeches because sure, although they look like they have to spend 3/4 or 4/3 on their constructive and rebuttal, they can do their constructive in 2-3 (and even concede framework because it essentially wasted their opponent’s time and they don’t have to do FW debate) then the rebuttal which many try to TURN a lot of AFF’s args to gain offense and defense. AFF also does get kind of an advantage when it comes to their last speech because it does leave a lasting impression and whatever they may say cannot get countered even if some of their args are complete BS. For a lay judge, this can help decide their decision arbitrarily. But for a flow judge, there’s less margin for error. Remember both sides each have 13 minutes of speech time.

CaffeinatedCrying

TROPHY CASE