AmGood
01-01-11, 06:30 PM
For the debate round: I do not mind tag teaming, nor do you have to stand during your speeches. Call Points of Order, as I will not do them for you.
I cannot keep up with a fast paced round on my flow, so be weary. I write down everything I can get to, but that doesn't mean I have your important arguments.
Aspects of the debate
Topicality: Don't run T where your standards are fairness, ground, or education. They are weak standards. Topicality is the negative team's tool to indict the affirmative team for not running a case under the purview of the resolution, not to tell me that their case isn't fair for your argument strategy or that you aren't being educated on what you want the round to be about. The aff has to not be talking about the topic for you to run topicality. I'll write something about your weak T on your ballot if you run it in front of me. Aff teams, don't say they don't explain what A Priori means or they don't say A Priori and therefore I have to reject it. Everyone knows T is A Priori, and what it means.
Procedurals: Same thing applies as T. Don't run fairness, ground, and education as standards.
Kritiks: I'll listen to your K, but don't run it just to run circles around the other team and hope to pull off a confusing win in the rebuttal. Remember, you're doing an injustice to academic thought when you think Marx can be explained in 7 or 8 minutes.
Case: If one team educates women improving access to a better livelihood and the other team says the same course of action kills off 15 men, I need to have an argument on how I should weigh those two issues. I understand that certain abhorrent things happen in the world, like: rape, genocide, murder and dehumanization, however, because debate has become a race to the bottom people assume that saying any one of those things warrants a ballot. I'm sorry, but you can't use buzzwords to win a debate. If you come into conflict between axiomatic evils, someone has to tell me which one happens in greater numbers, which has an effect sooner, or if it can be stopped at some time. Not just dehume bad vs. rape bad. If that happens, I'll look somewhere easy to write my ballot.
Other things to note: I honestly care about the truth. I found that after I stopped debating, my arguments carried little weight to persuade anyone in the real world. The skills I learned in debate still serve me well, but you can't just throw BS spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks. For anyone outside of debate, they'll stop listening to you and you've gotten no where. Be mindful of how you could prove your case to an intelligent outsider instead of trying to squeak by with a win.
I cannot keep up with a fast paced round on my flow, so be weary. I write down everything I can get to, but that doesn't mean I have your important arguments.
Aspects of the debate
Topicality: Don't run T where your standards are fairness, ground, or education. They are weak standards. Topicality is the negative team's tool to indict the affirmative team for not running a case under the purview of the resolution, not to tell me that their case isn't fair for your argument strategy or that you aren't being educated on what you want the round to be about. The aff has to not be talking about the topic for you to run topicality. I'll write something about your weak T on your ballot if you run it in front of me. Aff teams, don't say they don't explain what A Priori means or they don't say A Priori and therefore I have to reject it. Everyone knows T is A Priori, and what it means.
Procedurals: Same thing applies as T. Don't run fairness, ground, and education as standards.
Kritiks: I'll listen to your K, but don't run it just to run circles around the other team and hope to pull off a confusing win in the rebuttal. Remember, you're doing an injustice to academic thought when you think Marx can be explained in 7 or 8 minutes.
Case: If one team educates women improving access to a better livelihood and the other team says the same course of action kills off 15 men, I need to have an argument on how I should weigh those two issues. I understand that certain abhorrent things happen in the world, like: rape, genocide, murder and dehumanization, however, because debate has become a race to the bottom people assume that saying any one of those things warrants a ballot. I'm sorry, but you can't use buzzwords to win a debate. If you come into conflict between axiomatic evils, someone has to tell me which one happens in greater numbers, which has an effect sooner, or if it can be stopped at some time. Not just dehume bad vs. rape bad. If that happens, I'll look somewhere easy to write my ballot.
Other things to note: I honestly care about the truth. I found that after I stopped debating, my arguments carried little weight to persuade anyone in the real world. The skills I learned in debate still serve me well, but you can't just throw BS spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks. For anyone outside of debate, they'll stop listening to you and you've gotten no where. Be mindful of how you could prove your case to an intelligent outsider instead of trying to squeak by with a win.