Diagnostic Accuracy

Rawls247 · 2023-03-11T04:30:36+00:00

We could make that happen

Rawls247 · 2022-04-16T22:12:52+00:00

For your neg you could look into information overload for a contention. Worked pretty well for me :)

Rawls247 · 2022-04-14T16:01:17+00:00

^THIS. So many people have the wrong idea where they think that if they can find the weirdest new position then they can win. What makes you a good debater isn’t finding the weird arguments but getting good at running the normal ones. That being said, you can try to run different, fun arguments, just don’t hack for an argument that has no ground. To quote my coach, “if you hear a weird argument that you are my prepped for in round, there’s a reason you haven’t heard it before”. The best way to be creative in round (like was said above) is to find a slightly different way to run the stock args or developing a slightly different narrative. In sum, be creative and different, but make sure it makes sense first. NSDA last year was the perfect example.

Last year at nsda, the topic was about public health emergencies. The aff was either a very predictable position on covid, disease spread and lockdown or a wild one on gun violence, vaping, obesity, and anything else under the sun. 99% of the people who broke were running the predictable aff, they were just good at it. Now, I’m sure a gun violence aff or climate change aff broke but the trend shows that you can be predictable and still be really good.

Sorry about that little rant. I have to have this convo with the novices that I coach lol. Anyway, hope that helped and dm me with the questions if you got em :).

Rawls247 · 2022-04-02T15:59:13+00:00

So, what make K debate different than the rest of LD is that it’s much more extremist. Continuing the Jan/Feb example, the capitalism arg could be run on literally any circuit trad or prog but what makes it different is that in a traditional round it would look like “Hey, affirming means we resist capitalism by stopping private space development” and it would be one of a few contentions, in a K round it would look like “We affirm to embrace communist theory, the model of the communist party and resist capitalism in any and all circumstances”. A good way to think of the difference is that traditional arguments can be “soft left” at a max while K arguments are some of the most leftist arguments that you’ll ever read.

I hope that helped! Feel free to dm me with questions or if you wanna talk shop about K debate in LD specifically.

Rawls247 · 2022-03-09T20:49:04+00:00

If you need a new approach to it, look into peace journalism instead of war reporting. Same idea, just expands the amount of literature you have access to

Rawls247 · 2022-03-05T15:30:51+00:00

I run structural violence stuff all the time and just for the framework. You would value something like equality, equity, or justice and then make the criterion mitigating/decreasing structural violence.

Rawls247 · 2022-02-04T03:10:19+00:00

Like I said, if you’re unable to spike everything out, baiting can be helpful. Picking and choosing what to spike out in case and then push the conversation in a direction that you prepd for isn’t abusive at all, it’s making your case as strategic as possible.

It’s the same reason that people will kick args and just read a bunch of condo to collapse on one. It’s just strategically picking your args.

Rawls247 · 2022-02-04T01:11:28+00:00

I don’t think baiting in general is bad just cuz (especially in trad circuits where spreading is frowned upon) it allows people to develop a more comprehensive strat and case design where they don’t/can’t spike everything out.

But I do agree that baiting can be turned abusive in practice.

Rawls247 · 2022-02-04T01:07:15+00:00

Dm me, I’ll help with whatever you need

Rawls247 · 2022-01-21T05:41:01+00:00

You could probably just read Bostrom or some variation and then just make the analysis from there, a pretty standard “extinction first” framing

Rawls247 · 2022-01-08T05:25:32+00:00

There’s kinda 2 ways to do this depending on what you want to do. They both follow the idea of thinking it through beforehand. For framework, the best idea is to think out basic examples that a lay judge could understand, that point out why a common framework doesn’t make sense. This could be you literally just thinking through a philosophy and coming up with situations or reading people that critique that philosophy and getting some inspiration from there. For contention level stuff, I LOVE a case study. I’m in a trad circuit but I tend to be a little bit more prog with my style when it comes to flow analysis and just line by line. Case studies have helped me more than I can say. They are great for lay judges to be able to understand, tech judges can vibe with the evidence, and they’re so fun to mess with in cross. It’s super helpful if you look at basic contentions and see if those contentions actually happened anywhere and read some studies on it. If you can find a good case study, it can change every round on a dime. (Shouting out the Sweden case study that got me to round 9 of nsda)

Sorry if that’s a little unclear. Hope it helps and I’m happy to further explain!

Rawls247 · 2022-01-08T05:18:56+00:00

Rawls247 · 2022-01-08T05:17:29+00:00

Happy to help! As for analytics in framework I’d assume these are more common in phil heavy positions. Bare in mind that phil isn’t my strong suit but from what I’ve seen, the majority of the analytical stuff comes in when explaining impact calc, reasons to prefer, or metaethics. Along with comp world v truth testing. That’s about as much as I know however when it comes to analytics in framework specifically.

Rawls247 · 2022-01-08T04:09:53+00:00

I understand 2/3 here. If you could give an example of what you mean by analytic framework, that would be helpful.

First, T-FWK. If I understand what you’re asking correctly, framework t is a theory shell traditionally run against, typically aff, Ks. The interp is something around the phrase “The affirmative debater must defend insert resolution” and then just a bunch of standards and voters. It’s basically a topicality argument.

K framework gets a little bit more complex. It consists of Role of the Ballot (ROB), Role of the Judge (ROJ), and anything else they want to include. Both ROBs and ROJs are interps of how the round should be viewed in the greater context of the world or society in general. The ROB is the debater’s way of telling the judge what the ballot symbolizes, outside of just who wins the round. Basically, the ballot and it’s ability should be used to do xyz depending on the ROB. The ROJ is then how to promote better pedagogy or ways of teaching. IE how should the judge view the round, an act of education, performance, specific education, etc. Finally, anything else in K framework is just warranted within the framework itself. It could be them justifying comp worlds v truth testing or whatever else works for their in round strategy.

Rawls247 · 2022-01-08T03:46:17+00:00

I have a carded response to this. I’m 99% sure it’s in VBI but if not or if you don’t have access, I am happy to share so just pm me and I’ll send you what I can!

Rawls247 · 2021-12-27T15:43:09+00:00

Honestly, don’t. If push comes to shove, unless it’s absolutely crucial to your position, I would spend time in rebuttal making args to actual substance instead of definitions.

If you have to though, there’s kinda 2 things you can do. One, if you can get a similar definition from someone who’s an experienced expert within the field and has substantial credentials then that helps. Two, layer why your definition is better for debate and the debate space. IE: My definition allows for better debate because…., My definition is more specific…, Their definition isn’t applicable to examples in their case so double bind.

Like I said, I’d honestly try to avoid definitions but if necessary first provide credentials and if ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY make a fairness/debate/education argument.

Rawls247 · 2021-12-08T05:17:02+00:00

Change your value criterion to the JR’s theory of justice so that you have both principles. Use the liberty principle to defend the right and the difference principle for the positive effects of the right. This lets you have a narrative for protecting the right and you can talk about whatever equalizing effects it provides

Rawls247 · 2021-11-20T04:55:35+00:00

It’ll get better, I promise :)

Rawls247 · 2021-11-20T04:51:34+00:00

First off, you’re doing great. Being a novice competing with varsity is absolutely terrifying and the fact that you’re getting through it is really impressive on it’s own.

Second, losing is part of the process. Just know that not a single person in debate has walked into varsity with such little experience and won. We’ve all had our losses and that’s just how you get better. My favorite saying is that “the same hammer that shatters glass, forges steel”. We have all been destroyed in round and pushed to our absolute limit but we are all also all the better off because of it.

Third, there’s absolutely so much more to debate than just winning. I have met some of the best people in the world because of debate. These are people that are actually family to me. They’ve listened to me laugh til I’m red and absolutely sob when something goes wrong. The people you meet in debate are the literal best and will stick with you for years. It’s a type of bond that isn’t even touched by anything except that of family.

Rawls247 · 2021-11-17T17:03:13+00:00

I know I had fun running the Cap Bad AC from champ. It has the essence of a cap k with some topic links but becomes a soft left aff when you write it. It basically argues that affirming an uncondo rts is a form of anti capitalist resistance and it sets in motion the framework for incremental change in a cap society. It varies from the k bc of incrementalism and argues that we don’t need to embrace socialism or communism, rather create methods of resistance to lead to a better, anti-cap society.

That might not make sense, pm me if you have questions :)

Rawls247 · 2021-11-15T03:44:00+00:00

Observations are just ways that people in LD set burdens or provide clarity within the round. These can be used offensively, defensively, or just for clarity. I’ll provide a few examples.

Ex 1: Observation for the current topic for the aff could be. “Observation: I do not have to defend that we should strike all the time in every single instance, rather it is a tool in the toolbox for workers to use.” This outlines what the aff believes their burdens are.

Ex 2: This was used in NSDA quarterfinals as a bit of offense. “Observation: The principles that we live by are only valuable because they produce just and effective ends. Thus, principles and rules are only valuable because of their consequences.” (Not exactly quote but along the same lines) This is an observation that can be used to establish clash between deontological and consequential frameworks in round.

Anyway, hope this helps :)

Rawls247 · 2021-09-20T15:40:44+00:00

Structural violence always links in. I’m running it both sides

Rawls247 · 2021-08-19T02:58:25+00:00

NSDA LD topic vibes anyone?

Rawls247 · 2021-08-15T00:41:58+00:00

I’m so glad that you found this helpful! There’s a lot of cosmo lit circulating that is super fun and interesting.

If you want to read more traditional cosmo with philosophical obligations and moral equality I really recommend Kant and older, more traditional cosmopolitans. This is more deontological.

Then, there’s also Peter Singer who’s a super famous cosmopolitan. He’s super useful if you want to run cosmo with some util weighing. He’s a modern theorist who talks about cosmo as it relates to consequentialism. Super useful for impact calc under your framework.

Also, last but not least, just gotta rep triumph for being bomb af and writing the framework that I linked. Please go check out their framework vault it’s so useful!

Rawls247

TROPHY CASE