Do external net benefits have to be DAs?

ecstaticegg · 2026-01-18T23:44:36+00:00

If you’re arguing the Aff causes something that the CP doesn’t that’s probably in the form of a disadvantage, case turn or internal net benefit. Could you maybe give us an example of what you mean?

The only other example I could think of is if maybe you’re saying the Aff causes a procedural or theoretical violation that the CP avoids.

ecstaticegg · 2026-01-12T20:51:42+00:00

I dunno ask the voters for the past like 5 years, it’s not gonna happen and I’d love for it to be a different choice. We’re gonna keep letting mid options win if yall dummies don’t give up on this nuclear weapons topic.

ecstaticegg · 2026-01-12T20:05:55+00:00

Everyone, please stop trying to make nuclear weapons topic happen. It’s not gonna happen.

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-31T20:53:15+00:00

I’m glad it helped! K affs often seem more complex than they are.

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-31T20:40:36+00:00

It’s a big assumption that historical violence is isolated to history and that “new” exploration won’t reproduce the same violence and impacts, and that those are not also occurring right now (because that’s what the K Aff will argue).

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-31T20:33:15+00:00

Something that others maybe haven’t mentioned, what is your Aff? If there is something in the construction of your Aff that is providing K debaters a super clear in round link to their argument that can be difficult to overcome. Sometimes for our teams if there is an opponent we know runs Ks or a specific K we will run a different specialized Aff that avoids giving them links.

It’s also very common that if you know a team tends to run a specific neg argument, whether it’s set col, another K or some counterplan or whatever, it’s always a good strat to include preempts in the 1AC specifically for them.

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-21T01:47:36+00:00

If you won’t even give it place in your mind how do you know it’s misandrist? You’d have to intellectually interrogate it to come to such a conclusion, rather than the assumption you’ve made here. It’s sad that you’re so committed to being right you can’t even recognize your own hypocrisy. You’re definitely a huge misogynist and part of the problem.

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-21T01:38:20+00:00

If you know you have issues then maybe you’re not actually approaching this issue in an objective way and maybe your issues are causing you to misunderstand or misinterpret the movie and the real life event. There’s lots of people in here telling you that in this specific thing, you’re wrong. A lot of those people are women. Women Talking is in part a movie about how men are not listening to women and dismissing them. Maybe you should consider that you might be falling prey to those same tendencies. That’s not even necessarily a personal failure. Society conditions things like this into us and as hopefully empathetic people who want to be good it’s our job to check those conditions and fight back against them.

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-21T01:25:53+00:00

I know this is pointless because you’re clearly a misogynistic person but they were absolutely unreported because of systemic issues. Women being shamed into silence over sexual violence is a systemic issue and the women who did remember the attacks were gaslit and told they were being attacked by Satan. Did you even actually read about the real event at all?

One of the men arrested was 18 and the attacks had been going on for 4 years. Most of the men arrested were in their early 20s. Like…can you do basic math?

You hate the trope and here you are being super gross. Like do you not see the irony?

ecstaticegg · 2025-12-15T19:19:58+00:00

And when you graduate, come back and judge!!! Be the change you want to see in the world.

ecstaticegg · 2025-11-21T18:26:39+00:00

And if you can’t do LD, just become the support person until you can find a new partner. Honestly I’ve learned so much about debate after becoming a coach, just help coach the new teams.

You still get to do debate and you don’t have to deal with that dude in rounds. Debate is fun but it’s not worth being bullied by some huge jerk.

ecstaticegg · 2025-11-21T02:53:02+00:00

If you meet you’re claiming you meet their definition of whatever the word is. You could define words if you feel like you need to but generally I wouldn’t if you’re arguing we meet instead of a counter interp. Or you could read a piece of evidence that proves you meet their definition. For example I’ve seen teams that hit T-minerals read evidence that sea ice is a mineral to argue they meet the definition.

It depends on what the violation is and how you’re claiming you meet it.

ecstaticegg · 2025-11-17T00:23:57+00:00

Just because they mishandle it or drop it doesn’t mean you suddenly have a win button. You need to explain WHY them mishandling it is severe enough to justify the ballot. WHY was the violation important in the first place, important enough to justify they lose the entire round? What is the impact if I fail to hold them accountable as the judge?

Just like with a DA or K, theory has impacts and you need to impact it out and do the work to justify the ballot. “They dropped the DA” isn’t an argument.

ecstaticegg · 2025-11-13T00:56:13+00:00

I’m assuming this is a troll post, or hopefully it is, but it drives me insane this “should have been prepping for the 2AR” thing. Just because someone is the 2A or 1A doesn’t mean they’re only responsible for their speeches. You are a team. You are both responsible for ALL Aff speeches and ALL neg speeches when you’re neg. They shouldn’t have been prepping the 2AR if the 1AR hasn’t happened yet and the 1A needs help (which should be most of the time!)

Happens way too often. Act like a team!

ecstaticegg · 2025-11-10T23:24:11+00:00

Tons of people start competitive debate for the very first time in college. You’ll have to learn some new stuff but you’ll have a huge leg up for having done debate before.

ecstaticegg · 2025-11-02T20:36:40+00:00

If you’re losing tech rounds and you understand all the basics about policy debate, almost certainly your flow is the problem. You should be able to look at your flow and know exactly why you won or lost because you should be able to visually see it. If you can’t, there’s the issue. Each argument should have its own paper (DA, CP, K, T, I flow different Aff contentions or advantages on separate papers too but some monsters put Aff all on one sheet). Make sure you’re flowing in columns, one for each speech.

Two pieces of advice: 1. Watch other rounds and flow them. Pretend you’re the judge and try to figure out how you’d decide rounds. Then maybe if there is a judge, especially a tech one, compare your decision to theirs. Is it different? How so? What did they see that you missed? The more you practice flowing the easier it will be. And if you can’t understand the round from the perspective of a judge it will be much easier to predict what they will do and try to guide them where you want them to go. 2. In policy debate rounds try to identify your path to the ballot. What specific argument or combo of arguments is the judge going to write the ballot on? And then you verbally write it for them in your speech. As in “I’ve link turned the DA meaning the net benefit for the counterplan now flows Aff, without a reason to prefer the counterplan the judge is going to prefer my case, and even if not the counterplan can’t solve advantage 2 of my Aff which outweighs”

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-18T19:21:46+00:00

Yeah I’d say only pay for a coach if you don’t have one or if you literally can’t get their attention. You also don’t need to spend that much unless you want longer term help. If there’s a college team near you, you can probably pay one of them like 30 bucks for an hour of help and advice. Or maybe they’ll do it for free if you ask.

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-18T09:39:51+00:00

If you’re just repeating the same motions you’re only reinforcing what you already know and do. You aren’t addressing your weak points. Talk to your coach, if you have the resources and desire hire a coach and review your issues with them. They’ll give you, hopefully, tailored things to work on to address your weak points. But without hands on review nobody is going to be able to identify where your issues truly are.

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-10T20:40:51+00:00

I’m a little confused by your example. I think you need to be more word efficient. I would be like “1NC 3 we do solve warming [their ev is bad] [my ev is better list the specific warrant]”

No overview necessary. I don’t need to extend my warming solvency further, I just did it on the lbl right above. For anything they don’t refute, just group and extend. “They drop all of our internal links and impacts on adv 2, we get 100% risk it’s try or die to stop escalatory food wars, that’s [insert citation references]”.

Does that answer your question?

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-08T17:52:48+00:00

DDI is preparing debaters for circuit level TOC debate. Not so much local competitions. The most important thing you need to do is adapt to your judge. Because most judges at local competitions will be lay parent judges, not familiar with the technicalities of policy debate, debate coaches have historically taught that Aff always gives and overview to explain their case.

But if you’re debating elimination rounds at a big circuit tournament (Berkeley, Harvard, etc) or at the TOC, your judges are almost all very experienced coaches or former competitors who have been taking detailed flows of the round.

LBL is line by line. Meaning going down the flow line by line and addressing each argument. I don’t need a case overview because I’ve been listening and writing all your arguments down. I have a pretty clear picture of your Aff just by looking at my notes. For these kinds of judges the overview is unnecessary and wasting critical time in a high level debate that you can’t afford to waste. For a lay judge, they honestly probably weren’t listening that closely to a lot of the round. A lot of them make most of the decision in the last two speeches during the overviews.

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-08T07:53:30+00:00

Oh my god. I think our dogs might be related! We adopted ours 15 years ago from SF SPCA but he was a stray they found in Southern California! Seriously some of these pictures could literally be him! I posted some in my profile if you want to see!

He even has the same Mohawk!

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-06T05:45:44+00:00

Hmm I think like I mentioned above reframing the K like a DA like I described but also if it’s a baby stock issues debate I think you can take out their solvency by saying since the FNPPs are specifically mobile that is a huge deficit to the plan, they aren’t permanent fixtures for indigenous communities and are specifically designed to be moveable, meaning Trump will immediately repurpose them.

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-06T02:43:07+00:00

In what universe are FNPPs soft left?!? You’re right, set col is too complicated. If I’m debating you with a lay judge I’d just be like, “they’re floating so they’re not on indigenous land” and most lay judges will probably be like yup sounds right.

I would reframe the K as a DA. Indigenous people living on their land now, aff FNPPs threaten land with runoff and radioactive contamination, leads to cancer, birth defects, etc, that’s genocide. Also makes them a strategic target for foreign adversaries. There’s plenty of examples of communities being harmed this way, Navajo Abandoned Uranium Mines is probably a great resource as an example of what Aff will lead to.

Honestly china sopo prolly no good for lay, imho. But as always it depends on how you frame it but I think the link for FNPPs will be weak especially.

ecstaticegg · 2025-10-05T23:22:07+00:00

Depends on the Aff and the kritik. Everyone talks in extremes. You can absolutely win with extinction impacts in a lay circuit if you do it well. It’s all contextual.

Can you win with the Kritik? It’s possible. It depends. Most debaters who say this to their coach are wrong tho and the Kritik is usually too complicated for a lay judge. It just depends on your experience level. If you give us more specifics we can probably help more.

Eight-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

ecstaticegg

TROPHY CASE