The Public Forum Wording committee has developed a variety of potential resolutions for the 2021-2022 season. They are detailed in this post
This year, there has been a huge uptick in the number of teams disclosing open-source on the wiki. Tons of high-quality cases and evidence have been made available to students because of this effort. This post analyzes the pros and cons of open-source disclosure.
The phrase “always be hungry” is at the core of the winner’s mindset. More than anything else, you need to have a constant drive to win and get better. This post will discuss the many different aspects of the winner’s mindset that is required to consistently push through to late elimination rounds at high-intensity tournaments.
With increasingly sophisticated and pervasive weighing strategies, meta-weighing will likely become an important argument type to understand and read in a variety of rounds.
This is part of an ongoing series of blog posts about Debate and Economics. In this issue, I discuss dedevelopment economics, sustainability, and a few applications to debate.
The Public Forum Wording committee has developed a variety of potential resolutions for the 2021-2022 season. They are detailed in this post.
Competing interpretations is the idea that judges should evaluate two models of debate and vote for the better one. Under this model, any marginal risk of offense is sufficient to win. Reasonability rejects this “risk of offense” paradigm and instead says some abuse is permissible as long as it’s not “unreasonable”.
This is part of an ongoing series of blog posts where about Debate and Economics. This issue discusses the Federal Reserve, monetary policy, and applications to argumentation.
While it may be tough to persuade parents to vote for you, it takes the same skill set every time. Once you understand and master these skills, winning parents will be just as easy, if not easier, than winning tech judges.
This post makes the case for exploring alternate styles. In particular, circuit debaters—those who compete at national tournaments in a fast-paced, technical style—should realize that traditional debate still has merit. There are a few reasons for this.
How we orient ourselves to the experience and process of high school debate competition is often neglected in our preparation and focus in the days, weeks, months, and years leading up to the “grand finale”. This post looks at how mindset affects performance at the highest levels.
Strategic 1NC construction is something that takes time to learn. Fortunately, it’s easy to practice and gameplan fairly far in advance, and improving at it will do wonders for setting up an easier 2NR, and for pressuring the 1AR.
I have found that practicing with purpose is a crucial component of preparing successfully for high-stakes competitions. What I have found to be effective for developing a commitment to deliberate practice is detailed in this article.
There are many steps that go into constructing a good affirmative, ranging from initially researching and finding articles to starting the process of piecing together what potential advantages might look like to honing answers to specific positions.
A primer on some of the basic structure/arguments involved in going for T-USFG, focusing mostly on the types of impacts that people should go for when reading T.
A quick look into the universal, lasting benefits of debate, from research skills to cultural and social awareness.
Recently a troubling trend has emerged: many high-level debates have started to depend not on kritiks, policy, philosophy, or theory, but rather about debaters themselves. I will present the problems with such arguments and urge a moral and pragmatic imperative to put an end to them.
In this series, I’m going to go through some advice I have for debaters trying to reach the top of the debate world. This article is going to be introductory and is going to be about the perspective you should have if you’re planning to reach the top of debate.
In the proceeding discussion, I will present two independent justifications for conditionality, one axiomatic, the second inductive. The end goal of both is to demonstrate that conditionality, much like counterplans and negative fiat, is a logical consequence of the structure of debate.
Being independent, having other obligations, or struggling with the financial and mental toll of debate are all very real obstacles that all debaters will be facing, and it helps to have support networks to lean on when the going gets tough. This article is going to give some general tips on what resources you can generate when you’re a small-school debater.
The kritik has long been an established position in Lincoln Douglas debate. When read as a negative (neg) advocacy the kritik is meant to attack the assumptions inherent to the affirmative (aff) advocacy.
Judges have always been party to two schools of thought, tech and truth. The sentiment that judges should evaluate rounds with minimal bias while knowing exactly which arguments to exclude seems pretty obvious. Of course, if it were that easy we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.
This article proposes that we explicitly classify a type of theory shell that has proven more often than not frivolous and exhausting. My hopes are that it will be easier to identify frivolous theory and the community will be able to engage in norm-setting practices that help curb the use of these shells.
This article tries to bring to light some of the things that I feel like people aren’t discussing enough. These observations are based on my perspective from judging.