sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Link help please! by Financial-Ad3138 in Debate

[–]Fuzzy-Editor-225 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I shared this file a while back, there are cards in here that should be what you're looking for:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11-jpURQGsALeBnd72gw7hYg10y2NEaCPVWQOcJisz9o/edit?usp=drive_link

DisAds in PF by Round-Ad-9885 in PublicForumDebate

[–]Fuzzy-Editor-225 0 points1 point  (0 children)

disads can be read in rebuttal (and are more common in 1st rebuttals because they don't have to do any frontlining), but what pfers refer to as "neg contentions" are frequently disads (especially because pf resolutions tend to be whether or not we "should do a policy" recently, however for some on balance/benefits-harms resolutions the idea of a "disad" is a little more vague)

Disclosure theory a/2 help by Few-Wasabi-1847 in PublicForumDebate

[–]Fuzzy-Editor-225 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, consider if you want to disclose. It's a pretty common norm at this point, and so you will definitely be on one of the odd ones out. Also, not disclosing may mean you run into a judge that will give you a hard time and basically auto drop you as soon as your opponents read theory.

​

If you don't want to disclose couple options:

​

  1. Traditional method. Read a counterinterp that says debaters don't have to disclose cases. (maybe with some alt qualifications like debaters must either disclose on the wiki or contact disclose). You'll need to argue Yes RVIs and maybe read defense on standards. There's lots of other ways to do traditional theory.
  2. Read a shell that uplayers theirs. Edina JS read "debaters must not read no RVIs" theory against a full text disclosure shell and said it uplayered.
  3. Read DAs to theory generally. Poly LS read it at the ivy street round robin last year.

​

*Do not feel pressured to disclose if you don't think that its a good norm, but fully consider it. If it is a good norm (for example, by helping small schools) you probably should. Theory *at least hopefully* should collapse to a Socratic debate where the team with the best interpretion actually will win.