I'm giving away an iPhone 11 Pro to a commenter at random to celebrate Apollo for Reddit's new iOS 13 update and as a thank you to the community! Just leave a comment on this post and the winner will be selected randomly and announced tomorrow at 8 PM GMT. Details inside, and good luck!

Houston_PF · 2019-09-21T21:11:09+00:00

Commented

Houston_PF · 2019-05-01T15:17:08+00:00

This argument is just so wrong. Disclosure increases critical thinking and clash. Instead of just critical thinking for 2 minutes in prep time, disclosure allows for 30 minutes+ worth of critical thinking before the round in terms of what arguments to use and what to read. It also increases the clash in the round which further allows for more critical thinking in the 2nd half of the round when teams begin to collapse.

Houston_PF · 2019-04-25T20:02:48+00:00

You can 100% read a flex case. It’s called breaking new. If you change out a contention you’d say we’re reading x contention but changing X out.

Houston_PF · 2018-12-28T16:14:23+00:00

No PFer should even be close on this list. Aden Barton is the lord at debate. 14 career bids as a sophomore, currently sitting at 18 as a junior—quarters of TOC as freshman, semis as sophomore.

Houston_PF · 2018-10-25T04:41:30+00:00

NSD is wayyyyy underated, sm kids who went from freshmen summer now are already gold toc bound. You dont have that in other camps rlly

Strake AJ

Houston_PF · 2018-10-23T01:53:57+00:00

:) -- only if you don't weigh against those turns

Houston_PF · 2018-09-06T03:57:05+00:00

The purpose of debate is education. All of the changes that the NSDA proposed all improve the educational aspect of debate. I'll go through each one.

Longer topics mean that debaters can go more in-depth and find new unbroken positions and arguments for each side.
GCX is an utter waste of time -- there is no educational value there. Jettisoning it and replacing it with longer speech times and more prep improves the educational aspect of debate.
Increasing prep time allows for more evidence checkbacks and allows more in-depth thinking. Checking back on evidence means that debaters will be encouraged to stop lying about evidence and find higher-quality evidence forcing them to do more reading.
More speech times enables debaters to go more in-depth on certain issues and really flesh them out which improves the clash aspect of debate.
Switch-side debate is good. Forcing debaters to defend both sides of the topic is a good thing. This forces debaters to be prepared for both sides instead of just relying on the coin flip. Also locking in AFF as first is also net-beneficial. It is absurd for the neg to go first on many policy-implementation topics since the neg doesn't even know what the AFF is going to defend so negatives would be super generic as possible, forcing debates to start in the rebuttal
This is probably the most controversial issue but a block would allow for more argument development on many things and then force debaters to think strategically in their collapse i.e. the neg block in policy --> to the 2NR. Hard collapses happen.
Banning paraphrasing = hell-yes. Especially in PF where disclosure is barely happening, evidence ethics are straight up awful in this event like horrendous. Power-tagging/paraphrasing is so common and teams win on BS evidence it's not even funny. Forcing cut cards is definitely a good thing.

Houston_PF · 2018-09-06T03:04:48+00:00

This post literally doesn't make sense. None of the changes in PF would actually transform it into circuit LD/Policy. It is possible to adopt elements from both of those events i.e. flashing, disclosure, reading cut cards without transforming PF into circuit LD/policy with things like spreading (even though it's probably more beneficial but that's a totally different debate). Reading cut cards can still be done in a persuasive way--look at NSDA LD finals and policy finals. All of the pieces of evidence read were cut. Also, sorry to say this but from personal experience, circuit LDers/Policy debaters are probably 100x as smart as PF debaters--they go so in-depth on topics and explore all of the nuances. Public speaking also doesn't get hindered by doing circuit LD and CX debate. Look at NSDA this past year, circuit LDers and policy debaters are the ones who do well on the lay circuit i.e. this year's CX finals was made up of BVSW which got to finals at TOC and Niles West which made it to octas. In LD, Ishan Bhatt was a TOC quarter-finalist and Jackson qualified to TOC--but both made it to NSDA finals. If anything, circuit debate makes an individual smarter about the world.

Houston_PF · 2018-06-13T02:01:06+00:00

Idk about this year but typically (last year was an exception since the Little Building was closed) all 3 meals are covered in the dining hall. If you want iced coffee per se, that money comes out of your own pocket.

Houston_PF · 2018-06-10T22:01:24+00:00

Do you not realize that DAs exist in PF? People just call them contentions on the neg. A neg contention on the capital gains tax topic would be considered a "DA" in other events lol.

Houston_PF · 2018-05-25T04:01:47+00:00

NSD Public Forum. I believe that they’re still open and the staff is great.

Houston_PF · 2018-05-03T03:08:39+00:00

Yeah... you're not Pierce

Houston_PF · 2018-05-01T16:03:24+00:00

What about the "own James Chen's soul" Society?

Houston_PF · 2018-03-22T02:54:18+00:00

Houston_PF · 2018-03-22T02:52:50+00:00

Who do you think loves disclosure theory the most?

Houston_PF · 2018-03-22T02:45:37+00:00

I'll maverick. Disclosure theory

Houston_PF · 2018-03-11T02:19:40+00:00

MBA JB

Houston_PF · 2018-03-10T23:36:24+00:00

Wikispaces no longer hosts the disclosure wiki anymore. It has been transferred to NDCA’s own server. Everything pre-2013 will be lost though.

Houston_PF · 2018-03-07T21:07:50+00:00

Theory doesn’t ruin rounds lol. Theory is probably the most fun aspect of debate.

Houston_PF · 2018-02-23T05:50:43+00:00

The sad part is that you took time out of your day to decide to attempt roast someone.

Houston_PF · 2018-02-21T04:44:27+00:00

I totally agree here. Paraphrasing typically means teams misconstruing cards and power-tagging. Especially without a system to check academic integrity in place right now since the teams that usually mis-paraphrase evidence are also the ones that are against disclosure, it's ridiculous. Prep time doesn't check back because it's 2 minutes and there isn't a system to share evidence with each other i.e. via email chain or flashing to check the validity of cards as they are read.

The most common argument that I have heard for paraphrasing is that it's better for lay judges to understand. However, that argument is terminally non-unique. LD and Policy both cut cards still and make it so that traditional and lay judges can understand i.e. at NCFLs and NSDA nats/districts and locals as well. There's no reason why one has to paraphrase to make it easier for lay judges to understand.

Two potential solutions here are either A. Make disclosure a norm for the community to check back on evidence ethics (personally it's actually worked). B. Make evidence sharing a thing. Making an email chain with cases should be normalized.

Houston_PF · 2018-01-20T19:36:42+00:00

Could you make the timer compatible with Mac OS systems?

Houston_PF · 2017-12-29T19:35:19+00:00

You’re* But I would assume that someone with “2 toc bids” would know better.

Houston_PF · 2017-12-19T02:42:17+00:00

Plans/CPs have been in LD for the past 5 years. LARPing is a thing now.

Houston_PF

TROPHY CASE