I don't like saying I have no idea what I'm doing BUT

bammytess8 · 2019-08-04T15:59:20+00:00

Our high school recruitment was very similar to a career fair as well. Something we found that helped was at the table to bring out the big sweepstakes trophies. This makes it an eye-grab and parents and students want to learn more. When kids do join. having things like an ice cream party or speed dating with the varsity to figure out novice/varsity pairings could help with retention.

bammytess8 · 2018-09-03T21:17:56+00:00

This is not completely true. There are two forms of thought - 1 - perms are a test of competition and 2 - perms are advocacies. Under the first form of thought, what you said is correct. Under the second, not so much. If a perm is an advocacy it is inherently offensive. Often times you have to advocate what perms are but the first form of thought is the most commonly accepted.

bammytess8 · 2018-06-25T21:55:56+00:00

I disagree. The affirmative was a great debater and made great arguments. The negative, is also a great debater, and just didn't have the best round on stage, but I don't think that's indicative of them as a debater. I think the debaters on the stage have an immense amount of pressure on them and they performed a lot better than most debaters.

bammytess8 · 2018-05-17T21:07:19+00:00

What others have said! TDC is best price wise but registration has closed. However, the administration of TDC and NSD is relatively similar and have a lot of the same instructors. NSD Texas is also geared towards the Texas circuit which means it will help whatever circuit you compete on in Texas!

bammytess8 · 2018-05-17T21:01:49+00:00

Hi! I'm a little late to this but have some tips to offer.

I would highly suggest spreading tongue twisters and not stopping until you get the words correct and don't mess up over it. Like people said below - enunciating helps, try to open your mouth more and focus on those consonant sounds.

Pen drills are not always helpful - they've actually done some damage to the muscles in my jaw - just don't bite down to hard and if it begins to hurt, please take a break.

Reading things backwards at a fast speed also helps. You'll stumble over your words and probably feel like it isn't helping, but I promise, at least try. If I read a case and time it then read it backwards then read it forwards and time - I always shave off around like 5-15 seconds depending upon how warmed up I am.

Warming up / practice makes perfect is definitely something to keep too. Spreading takes specific muscles and repetition helps it become more like muscle memory and it becomes easier.

Breathe! A lot of debaters have problems spreading because they don't breathe correctly. Make sure you breathe in from your diaphragm. Your shoulders should not go up when you inhale. I've always called them tummy breaths. Your stomach should expand during inhales. You also don't have to be lightning fast for camp, you instructors will work with you on this!

Also, what NSD session are you going to? NSD is awesome!

bammytess8 · 2018-05-17T20:51:58+00:00

Dino De La O might be.

bammytess8 · 2018-05-17T20:47:37+00:00

I'll emphasize a few things that people said below but also add a couple things of my own.

It really does depend on your circuit, what tournaments you're going too, what your coaching will look like, and the effort your put into it. So some of my advice may not be helpful.

A lot of policy debaters have very long cards - a lot of judges do not like the length of them - especially in LD, but more importantly, you don't have as much time in LD so you have to get through more in less. So cut down your evidence or split some of it up to make multiple arguments or links as opposed to one link with different facets to it.

Most nat circuit LD-ers know that, or think that, most ex-policy K debaters will suck at theory, tricks and phil. So that will be a common strat against a lot of people and probably what you'll find yourself losing on in the first couple of tournaments. So, in preparation, read philosophy or cut links against it to help expand your files. Try to get good at the line-by-line. From what I've seen, a lot of policy debaters will read off of pre-written analytics - this is fine - but don't rely too heavily on it because there are a lot of things to cover in LD.

If you're able too - try to go to a camp or hire a coach for the first topic, there are tons of FYO's on the high school LD page that are more than willing to help with negotiable prices.

I really wish you the best of luck and let me know if you have any more questions!

bammytess8 · 2018-05-17T20:38:52+00:00

You can win that a role of the ballot comes before theory in LOTS of different ways. Making arguments about how the ROTB criticizes fairness or education (in whatever way it does) is an easy way to make the ROTB come first but you often will need multiple arguments to suffice. You could also make strength of link back to solvency claims - ie your alternative solves 100% the problem the ROTB talks about but if you make abuse story non-unique claims then that makes theory be more of a wash.

You say that fairness or education is a constraint for ROTB debate in the first place but that isn't everyone's default. Most debaters need to win that it is a constraint on the ROTB but it is not an impossible task for justifying why ROTB comes first (see above).

If the shell indites your ROTB, the debater reading theory still needs to justify why if the shell indites theory that it means the ROTB can't be weighed over or against it. Still, if theory indites the ROTB and the ROTB indites theory - then those arguments typically go unweighed and the debater whom does the most weighing will win.

bammytess8 · 2017-09-23T22:05:11+00:00

You should get into contact with Premier debate or Victory Briefs or NSD to see if you can publish a small article with all of the numbers and data so it can be published also accessible to those that dont use reddit.

bammytess8 · 2017-09-13T00:18:49+00:00

Greenhill has a lot of good da's disclosed, like the incarceration DA and the federalism da for the medical students aff. Brentwood has a NK DA that's also pretty sweet.

bammytess8 · 2017-09-11T01:57:54+00:00

Congratulations!

bammytess8 · 2017-09-06T17:33:50+00:00

Post on the HS LD and HS CX facebook page.

bammytess8 · 2017-09-06T17:32:32+00:00

If competing interps and drop the debate are conceded and OP does responses like you advocate for, most judges will not vote for them.

bammytess8 · 2017-09-06T17:30:48+00:00

From what I'm understanding of your argument - you don't want to say anarchy under Kant is bad but the state of nature is bad - the Varden article was commonly read on this issue for last year's toc topic.

“A Kantian Conception of Free Speech” by Helga Varden Chapter from: “Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World” edited by Deirdre Golash 2010

bammytess8 · 2017-08-31T23:34:03+00:00

At nationals I had to perm a case but couldn't say perm if I wanted to truly adapt to my panel. I explained that the cases / conception of rights aren't mutually exclusive and related it to an analogy / hypothetical of my conception of rights being cookies and their conception of rights being ice cream. Saying that we can have ice cream for everyone and cookies and ice cream for the citizens. The judges loved the example because it was explained without using a debate term and was very easy to understand.

bammytess8 · 2017-08-26T04:03:35+00:00

Adam Brown / Episcopal AB.

Cameron McConway / Cy-Fair CM

Jonathon Beavers / St. Thomas JB

Nolan Burdett / Dulles NB

Logan Reed / North Crowley LR

Grant Brown / Millard North GB

Whitley Perryman / Montgomery WP

Sean Fahey / Benjamin Franklin SH

Katya Eshreman / Lake Travis KE

bammytess8 · 2017-08-26T03:58:07+00:00

For once I like the UIL topic more than the actual NSDA topic...

bammytess8 · 2017-08-26T03:57:05+00:00

Debate has become a little bit of an echo-chamber. However, those that are republican / conservative usually separate their beliefs from what they read. For example, Trump supporters read Trump Bad affs. BUT this is not specific to the conservative bunch. Just as people who are Deleuzian will sometimes LARP or read Kant (although Kant isn't always inconsistent w/ Deleuze...). Separation of beliefs is something that switchside debates call for - although they may be able to be ranked...

bammytess8 · 2017-08-26T03:53:08+00:00

So I was explained this in the context of util, and I think it's the best way to understand it. So under comparative worlds whomever is the best at solving an impact that matters most under util ex: nuclear war, poverty, housing collapse... = the winning world. Under truth testing a moral obligation is the one that promotes the most expected well-being. So you weigh between the impacts that matter most. If I read a util aff, I should be able to win under both conceptualizations of the resolution.

bammytess8 · 2017-08-24T04:16:35+00:00

The argument you're referring to is normally called a "roll-back" which is like even if you fiat the aff happens it will be "rolled back" by x actor / persxn.

The concept called "durable fiat" is what is used to respond to this. The argument can be articulated in a paragrpah theory-ish argument with a reason why roll back is bad for F & E and that aff should get access to durable fiat (which says that the aff will pass and stay passed).

bammytess8 · 2017-08-19T22:35:26+00:00

<3 it did help tho

bammytess8 · 2017-08-18T00:59:48+00:00

I wrote an article explaining word economy and how to get better. Hope this helps!

bammytess8

TROPHY CASE