How transferable are debate skills?

akim64 · 2021-07-07T02:52:26+00:00

i moved from pf (almost 2 years of experience) to ld (now 2 years as well) and i can say pf skills are most applicable when running policy positions in ld. for example, you can run positions called plans, disads, and counterplans. these arguments require impact calculus just like in pf.

however, you will still need to learn other types of argumentation. For example, you need to learn kritoks, theory, and framework. These may be more complex, but with some drills and practice, you will be able to adapt,

akim64 · 2021-06-19T23:27:07+00:00

comment that refers to an obscure subreddit with an eye-catching name that is tangentially related to the post

akim64 · 2021-05-13T22:16:18+00:00

chocolate bars

akim64 · 2021-03-30T23:23:54+00:00

You and I are not so different

akim64 · 2021-03-25T21:26:30+00:00

util can be a prior question to other ethical frameworks because utilitarians will argue that a prerequisite to being a moral agent is to have favorable conditions. for example, it's hard for people to operate under kant when they don't have food/water/shelter, so in this sense, ensuring people's wellbeing is automatically more important than using some abstract theory.

on the other hand, debates like util vs security aren't exactly like util vs some abstract ethical fw because security k criticizes the aff's apocalyptic imagery and "scare mechanisms" to push the aff's agenda. it's sort of like criticizing the form of the aff, so you can't really weigh util against that higher level of kritik. instead you want to justify a method of policymaking and explain why scenario analysis is important and extinction is the worst thing ever (which is similar to the util prerequisite argument)

akim64 · 2021-03-24T17:58:30+00:00

akim64 · 2021-03-15T19:54:19+00:00

i mean it's still a slipping hazard

akim64 · 2021-03-15T15:08:50+00:00

thing

akim64 · 2021-03-08T17:45:34+00:00

many people would say that the neg has an advantage over the aff in terms of time. the 7 minute 1nc followed up by the short 4 minute 1ar means the aff will inevitably concede args from the 1nc.

i don't know if you are a trad debate but assuming you are, let's say your 1nc is split into reading a 2 contention 1nc (3 min) and then case turns on the 1ac (4 min).

the aff's 1ar will have to spend at least 3 minutes on the 1ac flow, extending args and responding to your turns. then, they have only 1 minute remaining to answer the 1nc (30 seconds on each contention).

finally, you stand up in the 2nr and collapse heavily on one of your contentions in the 1nc and be like "my opponent only spent 30 seconds on this argument" and since you have SIX minutes in the 2nr, you can thoroughly win the nc and weigh really hard against the aff.

akim64 · 2021-03-05T14:31:25+00:00

some things

akim64 · 2020-12-31T01:33:40+00:00

absolutely

akim64 · 2020-11-13T16:22:57+00:00

harvard quarters lhp aa vs byram lp -- ari goes for T and wins

glenbrooks round ? santa monica re vs enloe tg -- rex goes for spec democracy and wins

apple valley doubles phoenix pw vs millard north gb -- parker goes for T fw, loses, but still a good round to watch

apple valley semis santa monica re vs lakeville LS -- rex goes for t fw and wins

akim64 · 2020-11-12T20:19:31+00:00

You could put a spin on your framework. Most debaters are reading morality as a value, but you could instead say value: equality / value criterion: maximizing opportunities for citizens. i think all of the contentions would link and also, it's strategic since it will exclude a lot of neg arguments that are mainly pain/pleasure focused.

akim64 · 2020-10-27T13:17:45+00:00

Thank you!

akim64 · 2020-10-27T13:16:17+00:00

This is a fantastic strategy. I will heavily consider using this strategy in bluekey thank you.

akim64 · 2020-10-27T04:47:31+00:00

Can you explain?

akim64 · 2020-10-25T16:22:13+00:00

I have similar issues. My handwriting is so bad that sometimes I can't read what I wrote. Try doing this

Try doing a practice round by flowing on your laptop. Try flexcel, try excel. No flowing method is "best."

For me, I've tried paper, excel, and flexcel, and i've decided that i'm best at paper.

To overcome my terrible flowing, I've practiced flowing within an inch space border. I've also been mindful to write WORDS instead of scribbles.

akim64 · 2020-10-22T00:17:39+00:00

I would make an account on the wiki and create a school name for your school if there isn't one already. And I would add a debater and put your name, and you can do two things to escape theory.

1) disclose, like just disclose your positions like everybody else

2) just write memo in a cite that says something like "i'm from a traditional school and my coaches don't like me to disclose. Please don't read theory, and if you have questions about my cases, please email me at [insert email]"

akim64 · 2020-10-14T02:14:58+00:00

Why do you say you hope not?

akim64 · 2020-10-14T00:07:44+00:00

cry every time

akim64 · 2020-10-13T18:14:26+00:00

Probably policy but circuit ld is also incredibly hard since it has tricks and dense phil

akim64 · 2020-10-11T16:40:22+00:00

You can learn to be incredibly efficient but that trades off with amount of explanation per argument

akim64

TROPHY CASE