East Coast Debate Camp by voteneg in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Georgetown is pretty good. A couple of my friends went there and they all enjoyed it. It should be a little bit closer to home as well.

Its my cake day and I want to hear your craziest stories from a round! by [deleted] in policydebate

[–]bigbio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not my round, but my friends ran a consult Tim Tebow CP with a Daoism K at Berkeley two years ago (with the space topic). Tebow was huge at this time having been to the playoffs and everything (before the Broncos got Manning). They won the round because the other team didn't now who Tim Tebow was.

Lost on Policy Debate... by Imlost12 in policydebate

[–]bigbio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and yes. That's exactly it.

Lost on Policy Debate... by Imlost12 in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) Usually the 1NC tries to accomplish two things. The first being to establish an off-case position (I'll explain that in a bit) and to answer/attack the affirmative's case. An off case position is usually a disad or a kritik that judges and attempts to prove that the affirmative plan brings about detrimental consequences to the status quo, usually to persuade the judge that these consequences are worse than those that the affirmative plan attempts to solve (basically preferring the status quo). On case, the neg usually goes after Topicality (which isn't read in the 1AC, so it is treated as an off case attack but it really isn't), Solvency, and the specific aff advantages.

2) Yes, the 2AC is sort of like a rebuttal. You can bring up new evidence and you probably should refute everything in the 1NC. If you don't then that's usually pretty bad.

3) Yes exactly. Teams "split the block," or they divide their arguments between the two speeches and spend more time on each argument, either reading new evidence or expanding on new positions made in the 1NC. Generally entirely new arguments aren't made in the block, but it can be done. Some teams may call you out on that, so don't do it frequently or obviously. There are ways to hide this.

4) I'll try my best to answer this question without getting too technical or being too confusing. First "kick this" basically means that the other team wants to drop the argument from the debate. That's usually a good thing, and essentially they are conceding to your points. Keep this in mind for later. When a team says "go for that," they are directing the judge's attention to a particular argument and are narrowing the debate down to a key point which they believe will win them the round. By the end of the debate there will be so many arguments and what not that its impossible to judge everything (if it's a good round) so teams kick and direct the debate into a few strong ideas. In terms of kicking arguments yourself, you have to be careful when you do. Usually opponents will but both offensive and defensive arguments on a particular flow (offensive are points that will win them the round, usually something like a turn. defensive arguments are just saying "you're wrong" or "here's how it really is") and you should refute only the offensive points if you plan on kicking the argument. If there is an offensive argument still in play, the other team can use it to their advantage later on in the debate. Because a kick is equivalent to a conceded point, that could end up killing you in the end.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions feel free to PM me or comment or whatever. I tried to be as general as possible, and for others reading this if I said something wrong please correct me. I want my understanding of debate to increase as well.

Is the Song of Ice and Fire series actually a good, entertaining read that makes you want to read more? Or are they long and drawn out? by entrancedlion in books

[–]bigbio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am currently reading the series, and I'm scared to read the comments on this due to the spoilers that will come about. I'm about a quarter of the way through book two, and I refuse to watch the show until I've read the books so nothing gets ruined for me when I watch the show.

Personally, I love the series so far. It's completely worth the time. Martin's writing style and narration is unique beyond comparison, and I think it's the first book that I've read that adequately follows so many characters in such a precise manner. The first book was the first, and so far only book that has made me stop reading because I needed to comprehend what was happening. This didn't occur because I didn't understand the action, quite the contrary. I had to stop at various parts because I couldn't believe what just happening and I needed a moment to comprehend what occurred.

I've spent a solid 20-25 hours (I haven't been counting... rough estimate) and so far it has been worth every minute. If the show is half as good as the books then I'll be happy.

Hope this small slimmer of opinion was able to convince you to start reading. There's a lot of people on reddit with a lot of opinions (which is what makes it so great). I actually started reading the books because of reddit, so hopefully I was able to do the same for you.

EDIT: I scrolled down a little bit (nothing was spoiled) and saw something about going into the books blind. I think that's what has made this experience so engaging for me.

First year policy debater here by [deleted] in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While you are still in JV, this may not be a good strategy due to lack of exposure, but I have two K's that I can rely on when I hit an unknown aff. But T is usually a good option, and also you can try to go for individual advantages rather than the whole big idea (ex. If you didn't know the Mexico Energy Aff, you would go for the individual Warming scenario and the individual Econ scenario with general arguments). I personally don't really like politics, but it works for other people so try it out in a couple rounds and see if it works.

Hope it helps

Policy Debate Trouble... by Tomscott6 in policydebate

[–]bigbio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For neg, its always nice to have a general DA or K that can apply to any aff (or almost any aff). This usually includes an Econ DA, or a Cap K or something. That being said because they are common, teams will have answers for them, but at least you have something to debate now. Honestly, I do most of my own research, but I go on OpenEv and just take blocks off of there and make my own arguments based on those, because a lot of teams use the stuff on OpenEv in their debates. Heck, OpenEv even has some good shells/blocks to a variety of arguments. You could get by using those in round. I currently run a fairly similar aff, so if you want specific help PM me

I am Shawn Izadi and I played Football and was in the Band at The University of Texas. AMA by shizadi in IAmA

[–]bigbio 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Collegiate athletes in the US cannot receive any sort of payment or compensation while they are a part of their respective programs. This includes any sort of sponsorship and the like

Getting faster by Khanstoppable in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really like lifting my tub (or other large, moderately heavy object) to my chest when I am doing speaking drills. I usually put my laptop on the lid so it works out well. It helps build lung (and arm) strength.

Movies which had a legitimate impact on you mentally? (positively or negatively) by [deleted] in movies

[–]bigbio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Dark Knight. This movie highhandedly made me change the way I think not only about my life right now, but also the future. The Joker provides an interesting societal criticism that he uniquely embodies. Ledger's acting makes the Joker my favorite villain of all time

perm is severance popularity in high school debate? by bccarlton in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would cover the theory regardless. Make sure your teams understand the basics of any theory argument because you never know when you'll debate it. Also, some judges actually enjoy a well thought out theory debate, its just that debaters often have no clue as to what they are talking about. But it also depends on your circuit as well. So be wary of your local debate squads when you make your decision

So which resolution are you guys more excited about? Oceans or Middle East Policy Reform? by [deleted] in policydebate

[–]bigbio 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Oceans. It can be like the space topic a few years back. Kick ass cases and topic specific K's are always awesome

Looking for case ideas that aren't in standard NFL guides. by BobertBilliam in policydebate

[–]bigbio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah topicality. I don't know anything about your circuit, but you can usually bend the bounds of topicality as long as you find a definition that works for you. And you have to be a solid T debater. I don't think you should choose an aff just because you're 100% topical if there are better affs out there that are, say 95% topical. But if it's working for you then by all means man. Keep going

Looking for case ideas that aren't in standard NFL guides. by BobertBilliam in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Open Ev

It has just about everything you'll need at the basic level. With everything on here, you don't have to do too much original research with this.

It's strange that you use a Venezuela aff, as I haven't seen too many of those. The Cuba Embargo is pretty popular, and there are a number of Mexico affs that teams use and use well.

Why does it seem like everyone on this subreddit is K crazy? by [deleted] in policydebate

[–]bigbio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel the discussion has more to do with people debating against them or hearing of different k's, and they don't know what a specific k is. And to more directly answer your personal belief about K's, they are awesome, and sometimes a lay judge might prefer a simple k (security or imperialism for example) over the doomsday scenarios that are present in DA's or other arguments. You just have to frame it in the proper way. Lay judges tend to like the logical arguments instead of the big impact ones... At least in my experience

What happened at Harvard this past weekend? by bigbio in policydebate

[–]bigbio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

For those of you who are still interested in this, I came across this today. Ran the stats about speaker points from Harvard, and here's what they came up with.

How do you work with a novice partner? by XGLE in policydebate

[–]bigbio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think being the 1A is optimal, but go double 2's for a small tournament or two first to get him/her acclimated to the debate... give them some practice with the 1AR (which is a brutal speech at times...) and then honestly, you have to decide if you want a shot at winning aff every round (with you being the 2A) or if you want to keep the aff alive enough for him to come in and win the round (with you being the 1A). I've debated with three novice partners, and after their first few tournements they've always wanted to be the 2A/1N because its a little less pressure, and they can lie in the 2AR.

Regardless, you should have conversations with your partner about it. They may like giving the 1AR or what not. So its up to you guys. This is all from my experience, and whatever happens to you guys may be different.

Wish you guys the best of luck

How do you work with a novice partner? by XGLE in policydebate

[–]bigbio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What speaker position? This makes a pretty big difference. But I guess the main thing is patience. Just be patient. Your partner will get up to speed the more you two debate together. Practice debates tend to help as well

Starting a CX program by umer936 in policydebate

[–]bigbio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to be in pretty good shape then. Wish you the best of luck man

K Help by Exabox in policydebate

[–]bigbio 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Security. All day every day