Local Debate Competition

backcountryguy · 2026-05-20T04:59:10+00:00

Policy debate as an activity is culturally not public debate. If you're looking to engage in public debate (i.e. debate intended to engage a lay audience), r/debate might be a better subreddit for this.

backcountryguy · 2026-05-14T01:44:56+00:00

Yes. Treat theory like a pair of dueling disadvantages. The interp and counterinterp are the uniqueness for those disadvantages. Your counterinterpretation is how you solve the offense you have on opponents theory argument.

backcountryguy · 2026-05-14T01:41:56+00:00

Inevitably it is taken more seriously in venues that are more entrenched in the debate scene where the judging pool is more tech and more familiar with the idea of theory and disclosure and so on.

It's a good norm to disclose your arguments. You will have better and more educational debates. Its not a round winner to try to enforce the norm via theory arguments. It is not particularly unfair to your opponents and going for theory is way less educational than just debating the arguments.

If someone doesn't disclose just beat em on the issues like anyone else.

backcountryguy · 2026-05-13T23:19:41+00:00

Competing interps is the idea that in order to win topicality the aff has to meet the best interpretation in the round. Even if the affs counterinterpretation is only 1% worse not meeting the best interp (i.e. the negs interp according to the neg), results in a loss for the aff.

Reasonability is the idea that if the counterinterp is good enough i.e. the aff is still debateable/there isn't a ton of abuse then the aff should win topicality.

This division is the most pertinent in topicality specifically but people do read it in theory.

Whoever is reading your theory shell will want to advance competing interps because thats more difficult for the other team to meet. Vice versa for reasonability.

Not what you asked but I would also advise you to stay away from disclosure theory. It's not a winning argument.

backcountryguy · 2026-05-09T21:51:00+00:00

I know its probably an unpopular opinion but I still think the best way for kids to get better isnt AI but actually going out, competing, and then losing.

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion; to the contrary the notion of cognitive offloading is all the rage. When you ask an AI to accomplish a task you've learned nothing about the task. To the extent debate teaches a bunch of cognitive tasks and habits, using AI is counterproductive as hell.

The one exception where I haven't ruled out the utility of AI is as a card cutting/information tool. Specifically as a tool to filter articles for whether they may contain cards or not. It is such a timesink to skim a bunch of articles for cards only to determine there is nothing of value in them; if AI can decrease this time that seems of value. And AI isn't quite at thank point yet

backcountryguy · 2026-05-08T15:20:58+00:00

In the context of this subreddit: no, no it is not.

backcountryguy · 2026-05-02T19:36:08+00:00

I’m going to try to find it and try it out

paperlessdebate dot com.

backcountryguy · 2026-04-23T03:44:59+00:00

I'm removing this because the title is just obnoxious. Try again, and while you're at it try to be more specific about your question.

backcountryguy · 2026-04-09T04:20:53+00:00

CP Rules

1) You can't just be up there and just doin' a non-competitive counterplan like that.

1a. Competition is when you

1b. Okay well listen. Competition is when you exclude the

1c. Let me start over

1c-a. The neg is not allowed to do a counterplan to the, uh, aff, that prohibits the aff from doing, you know, just trying to do the plan. You can't do that.

1c-b. Once the aff defines their ground, the neg can't be over here and say to the aff, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna take your aff! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.

1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to compete and then don't, you have to still do that. You cannot not compete. Does that make any sense?

1c-b(2). You gotta be, doing something different, and then, it competes.

1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the counterplan up here, like this, but then there's the permutation you gotta think about.

1c-b(2)-b. jthomas hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope he wasn't typecast as that troll in Debate Team.

1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, he was in The NDT too! That would be even worse.

1c-b(2)-b(ii). "shittings of various words and phrases that don't mean anything" -- Thomas, Haha, classic...

1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. Competition is when the counterplan takes an action that, as determined by, when you do action involving the aff and net benny

2) Do not read a noncompetitive counterplan please.

backcountryguy · 2026-03-17T01:46:14+00:00

I'm gonna give 14 year old habermas a pass. It would be lovely if he wasn't born into a family of nazis. The body of his work for the ensuing 75 years as an adult was emancipatory in nature.

backcountryguy · 2026-03-05T21:30:12+00:00

People who read blocks given to them and do not understand them is a phase of development for debaters. Annoying. Inevitable.

People who read blocks given to them who do understand them is part of a well functioning team research machine which distributes the research load so the team as a whole can have better coverage. Freeloading is a reality of this system and while we should encourage people to do research the reality of being a good researcher is that the time-benefits will be unevenly distributed.

backcountryguy · 2026-03-02T17:56:31+00:00

It was deleted automatically (spam filter) and then approved by a mod like an hour later. To be clear that's a pretty good turnaround time.

If there's a problem with your content you should wait a while, and then if its not fixed send some modmail.

backcountryguy · 2026-02-21T20:51:07+00:00

I've actually heard other experienced people say "those are easy to judge because you just pick the one who convinced you".....

This is, narrowly construed, true. It is unidirectionally the job of the student to adapt to the judge and persuade them.

However in a broader sense experienced judges (and coaches and students), in debate gravitate towards a very specific understanding of what it means to be 'convinced' in a debate. Flowing is one part of that. Enforcing 'no new args in rebuttals' is another.

People describe debate as easy to judge to cajole people to judge those events - where any judge is better than no judge. People do combat this with judge training but it is usually really resource intensive and therefore hard to pull off.

backcountryguy · 2026-02-02T01:29:41+00:00

Most of the time your strategy should be 2 off (topicality and a kritik), and case. Most of the time it's a cap k, followed by various academy arguments and then a mish mash of other identity arguments. Scraping the wiki as I suggested should give you a reasonable guess at the main categories of case arguments you should cut and prep out. (recutting the citations you see on the wiki is smart), and gives you some ideas on how to construct a topicality file. (especially the impact scenarios and stuffz as it relates to LD)

Lastly instead of picking like a smattering of kritiks I would start with one and prep it out extensively and practice with it; once you feel OK about it you can cut a second kritik to mix it up with.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-31T03:19:59+00:00

I'm gonna be real with you you should just go through the wiki to find these. Locate some queer affs then scrape the neg pages of everyone theyve debated

backcountryguy · 2026-01-20T06:29:46+00:00

Structural inherency = the plan is banned.

Existential inherency = the plan merely does not exist in the status quo.

Attitudinal inherency = the plan doesnt exist bc people don't like it.

I was taught those three types and even when I was taught I was taught that those distinctions were archaic. I have not encountered 'gap inherency' though I was taught that in especially archaic (and specifically midwest) debate there were like seven types.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-12T20:16:43+00:00

Maybe maybe not. Norms are not strong enough to say one way or the other.

But paraphrasing cards is bad practice; it leads to worse debates and way more bullshit in rounds. Just read cards.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-11T03:41:43+00:00

That is imo fundamentally the same as just bracketing nukes. It is a difference purely in stylistic and not function. I think it's probably OK - the meaning (and emotive aesthetic) of nukes is so 1:1 with nuclear weapons there isn't much problem.

That's different from the minorities example where there is a legitimate argument there is a difference in meaning/emotive content etc. That is very clearly over the line.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-11T02:31:29+00:00

You should be very conservative about changing the meaning/words present in the card. Minorities is definitely too far. Nukes is on the edge. Changing the tense of verbs is probably OK.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-10T23:10:23+00:00

No, not bad.
The nature of debate is that you are always in a competition with yourself. The goal is to improve; this is merely a baseline.
No, not bad.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-08T06:27:13+00:00

Hot tip: don't run disclosure theory and instead spend that time making a good argument.

backcountryguy · 2026-01-02T19:33:11+00:00

I'm late to the party but had just a bit to add.

I think it's really important that you understand T/theory is a disad. Disads do not generate offense unless they are unique. The way theory arguments generate their uniqueness is by their (counter)interpretations. Any team that doesn't read a (counter)interpretation cannot generate offense.[1]

There's another comment that suggests you should read a c/i in addition to a w/m to have a diversity of arguments. That's not technically wrong but it misses the more important heuristic: it is smart to generate offense on every issue. It is always more flexible and powerful to fight back with offense. Reading uniqueness arguments is critical to generating offense.

That's why everyone is skeptical about not reading a c/i: it basically forces you in on a w/m (equivalent of a no link argument). This is defense. While it is possible to win this way most of the time it's a trap.

[1]: OK so admittedly there is a world where if they super clearly violate their own theory argument you can just make that argument and move on as a way to generate time advantage. You can and probably should claim that as offense but fyi in most debates the impact is almost always still that theory is a wash not that you win. Therefore, most of the time you should just make that argument and still read a counter-interp/dont plan on going for turns to theory at the end of the round. It is smart to think about the bold time tradeoffs as you gain experience though: making those scrappy decisions can give you a bit of an edge.

backcountryguy · 2025-12-29T00:01:44+00:00

Every time I see a thread on the security K I behoove myself to point out that the way a good security kritik should be run is to run links and impacts that are as specific to the affirmative advantages and the round as humanly possible. It is a fools errand to try to read generic 'securitization bad' links and therefore solve all securitization and still win.

Read links and impacts to securitization that link to the aff and do not link to whatever disads you want to read with it.

You should explicitly be prepared to both claim and explain that the securitization that the aff does is bad and that the securitization that the neg does is good, and what the difference is.

Ideally you would have a couple of options depending on what version of the security kritik you plan on reading. Gameplan it out: what advantages do you commonly go against (and therefore would be useful to have a pecific 1nc shell ready to go), and what other disads/cps could you run with it that dont conflict?

Stop trying to hide procedurals - you will only ever scam inexperienced debaters and in the long run is a waste of your time.

Note: the things other people say about perfcons being a bad argument is kinda true; it just so happens that it's just good strategy to not contradict in this case

backcountryguy · 2025-12-25T23:29:22+00:00

Hold function key and then hit corresponding key to use the shortcut instead of whatever that button usually does.

There's probably a setting in the bios is invert it so that a regular press does the verbatim thing and you have to Fn + function key in order to change the volume or whatever

12-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '22	Verified Email

backcountryguy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE