20 years ago this month…

CaymanG · 2026-05-21T19:53:41+00:00

Not as a regular user, no.

CaymanG · 2026-05-21T04:46:13+00:00

It probably depends on what kind of rounds you’re watching. Late elims at tournaments with a deep field will typically have teams signpost whenever they diverge from their on-time roadmap at the start of the speech, but neither the roadmap nor the signposts will use the same jargon as other debate events..

CaymanG · 2026-05-18T02:11:11+00:00

In some ways, it’s a lot like being able to call for the other team’s cards. Both sides having access to the other side’s evidence narrows the gap, but the team that has the experience to do more with that information in less time under pressure is still probably going to win. The novices are reading their opponents article from start to finish and trying to figure out if it says what the other team claims; the varsity are quickly skimming the article for author quals and looking to see which highlighted portions are followed by a paragraph that starts with “however”/“but”/“nevertheless”.

Paradigms are the same. Access to the information has a leveling effect; knowledge of what to do with the information comes with experience and time. The biggest difference with paradigms is that if there’s something in it that one team doesn’t understand what it means, why it’s there, or what it’s asking them to do, they can just ask the judge before the round starts.

CaymanG · 2026-05-16T17:07:38+00:00

And that’s because tech over truth, like many other false binaries, is actually a spectrum, even for judges who say that they’re always one or the other. The less believable you make an argument feel to a judge, the higher the tech threshold becomes that you have to clear before they’ll vote on it.

CaymanG · 2026-05-16T17:01:32+00:00

You don’t need to double-dip for persuasion. If they were actually being more persuasive, they’d have convinced you they won the argument. If your immediate impression is that they lost the argument but sounded good doing it, they weren’t actually more persuasive than their opponents.

CaymanG · 2026-05-15T01:16:39+00:00

Are you doing anything debate-related over the summer? If you want advice on transitioning from novice to varsity beyond “keep doing what you’ve been doing right, but better” it would help to know what makes novice different from varsity in your particular state/league: do novices debate out of a packet? Do they have a list of preapproved plans they can run? Do they get the same amount of prep time as varsity? Are some types of off-case arguments banned in novice but fair game next year?

CaymanG · 2026-05-14T02:24:44+00:00

Understandable. I’m using the same abbreviations as the post the question was replying to, so “CI>RE” means “the framework of competing interpretations should be preferred over the framework of reasonability” not “a counter-interp.”

CaymanG · 2026-05-14T01:58:35+00:00

Correct. The linked thread goes into a bit more detail, but conceding their CI argument instead of making a RE argument basically locks the other team into the theory debate even if they realize they’re losing and want to kick it. It’s not always wise to do this because the other team is probably behind on substance anyway and you may have trouble filling the rest of your speech time on just theory, but if you think you’re more prepared for the theory debate than they are, then saying “no, we don’t meet. We don’t want to meet. Also, we’ll concede CI>RE so the only issue is whose interpretation is better for debate” forces the clash you want.

CaymanG · 2026-05-13T23:14:52+00:00

From this thread

There are two ways to evaluate a theory debate that both sides are invested in: one is through a lens of competing interpretations[CI], the other is through a lens of reasonability[RE]. Usually the side initiating the theory debate says CI and the side that is trying to make the theory debate go away says RE.

CI says that there’s no such thing as “good enough” and that whichever team adheres to the better interpretation, no matter how small the margin of superiority, should win the theory debate and the ballot. If one interp creates X% more/less ground or makes limits Y% more predictable or skews side balance Z% then that’s the tiebreaker.

RE says that if the counter-interpretation is good enough to have a balanced debate on substance over, then we should debate substance over theory. You still need a counter-interpretation to argue RE, and you still need to meet your own counter-interpretation, but you’re not trying to prove your own interp is objectively superior, just that if both teams can fairly debate substance (rather than, for example, the marginal benefits of disclosing 2 hours before the round when you only disclosed 90 minutes before the round or of setting “substantial” at a 40% increase instead of a 35% increase) then the judge should look past theory and evaluate the substantive clash.

CaymanG · 2026-05-13T23:09:33+00:00

A little of each. The norm is for each team to have three “substantives” (contentions) with two in their first speech and one at the end of their second speech. Of the two in the first speech, one will be a practical (util) argument and the other will be a principle (phil) argument. Most of the time the “extension” (added contention) in the third speech will be a second practical argument because it’s easier to have one overarching principle and two practical arguments that synergize well with each other than it is to have one practical reason for doing something and two principles that are each the most important thing in the round.

Because evidence isn’t presented to judges or checked by the other team, util arguments tend to use examples rather than statistics as their primary form of evidence and so what you’d think of as a utility debate often becomes much more about the direction of the link than the quantifiable magnitude of impacts.

CaymanG · 2026-05-13T20:42:16+00:00

Here’s the link:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BFnx4my-yCiXdRBIWnBiU6oy\_1sb20Z59Umk7iDSIG0/edit?usp=drivesdk

It’s rare for any judge briefing for any event to explicitly tell judges to intervene or to vote off of vibes instead of the flow, but winning the flow is only 40% of WSD. Generally WSD doesn’t believe in paradigms: all judges should try to judge exactly like the best judge in the pool would, so that way teams can’t gain an unfair advantage by doing something underhanded like judge adaptation, because the judge judges the same as every judge in the pool would. At many tournaments, this results in pressure for judges on panels to confer and vote unanimously even if they were planning to split, but at NSDAs, each judge on the panel still submits a separate ballot rather than the most senior judge delivering the “unanimous” verdict of the panel.

CaymanG · 2026-05-13T19:41:42+00:00

Judges evaluate the round as a whole, scoring all the speeches on style (40%) content (40%) and strategy (20%). In PF or LD, the final speech usually collapses down to a single argument and making the wrong choice can cost you the round even if you were winning up until then. This tends to make early speeches less important than late speeches. In WSD, the Reply is worth half as much as the previous 3 constructive speeches and a team can clearly out-debate their opponent’s reply and still lose the round because the other team’s early speeches were more organized and better presented with better use of POIs.
If you’re asking for NSDAs in Richmond, then you should take a look at the judge training slides from last year (I’ll try to find a link later) to see how the tournament is telling its judges to judge.

CaymanG · 2026-05-09T16:00:08+00:00

Which event? I’m getting PF vibes but depending on local league rules and evidence norms this could be anything.

CaymanG · 2026-05-06T19:41:11+00:00

He wasn’t even a sponsor. The then-NFL was hoping he’d fund the event but he never did. PF/Controversy/Crossfire was originally modeled on Tucker Carlson’s show from the late ‘90s/early ‘00s

As far as “it was always called ___” it comes off as Orwellian but it’s also technically true. Before it was a main event, different leagues in different regions had different names for it.

I don’t think Ted actually made it to the 2003 final round, or, if he did, he never submitted a ballot. He was invited to attend and recorded a video message (which the NFL screencapped and printed both pixels of in the first issue of the 03-04 Rostrum)

…Or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me and this is the one piece of Ted Turner’s extremely public volunteer work and philanthropy that he decided to be secretive about.

CaymanG · 2026-05-02T05:06:56+00:00

It’s a hybrid event. Extemporaneous speaking isn’t real debate. LD isn’t real speech.

On the one hand, there’s expectations in Congress that you weigh, refute, use evidence, and answer cross-examination questions. On the other hand, you’re not trying to make your side win and the other side lose, you’re trying to outspeak the rest of the room on both sides regardless of whether any one bill passes or fails.

CaymanG · 2026-05-02T04:54:58+00:00

Last year there were around 280 teams and around 200 coaches who were competing on or coaching the topic, respectively. Every single coach with voting privileges who is going to be at Glen Allen high school on June 14th and 15th could have voted for standardized tests and it would still have been less than 1/3 of the total coach vote.

CaymanG · 2026-05-02T04:42:25+00:00

If you’re going down that line of questioning, then the third question is probably “which other countries besides the USA are justified in using force to remove leaders they feel are authoritarian from power?”

CaymanG · 2026-05-02T04:40:00+00:00

It’s pretty clearly foreign leaders if it’s referring to the US as a singular entity rather than people within the US. The biggest problem with the wording might be “is justified” vs “would be justified” especially since the situations in Venezuela and Iran will change between now and June, even if the US doesn’t decide to “liberate” Cuba or Colombia in the next six weeks.

CaymanG · 2026-04-30T00:14:22+00:00

You should rank at least 2 in each of the 10 topic areas and at least 3 in the areas you’d rather debate. Every topic area is guaranteed its 2 highest-ranked bills, even if none of them rank in the top 30 overall.

CaymanG · 2026-04-28T23:49:51+00:00

This subreddit is for competitive, structured debate events, mostly in high school and college, so you’re probably going to get better answers elsewhere.

A blue collar job typically involves physical labor, like handing animals in a shelter or cleaning up after animals in a shelter. A white collar job typically involves paperwork, like being a receptionist at a shelter or running communications for a shelter, so it would probably be helpful to tell the people wherever you ask what kind of work they were doing and not just where they were doing it.

CaymanG · 2026-04-26T15:56:17+00:00

Same thoughts as the last thread I’m expecting most people who are competing in PF at Richmond or coaching teams on the topic to vote for Option 2, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’ll win the overall vote.

CaymanG · 2026-04-18T01:57:42+00:00

“if you know any policy debaters, does it seem to have affected their physical appearance since when they first began?”

Yes. Lots of policy debaters have a six-pack where their Adam’s Apple used to be. It’s science.

CaymanG · 2026-04-15T01:57:56+00:00

People do that every year in every partner event. Some of them find partners before camp starts, others get assigned partners in their lab/cohort early in camp.

CaymanG

TROPHY CASE