The Official TL Policy Debate thread - Page 3

On February 16 2012 14:05 Jaso wrote:
By they, you do mean the judge, right?

Also, if I have absolutely 0 clue what's going on in my opponent's speech what should I go for in the CX? (this is really LD and not policy but I guess it's the same)

On February 16 2012 14:47 Navillus wrote:
Policy is stupiddd... Sorry I'm an LDer and LD is stupid too, honestly spreading in general is silly and a practice that I really think needs to go away, both events have become way too elitist and are basically useless in the real world. And yes I spread, I do LD on the national circuit, I actually debated the Aff in that sunvite video, Yang Yi, in my first ever round of varsity LD. I got rolled. anyway for people that don't do Policy or LD both events are extremely closed, elitist, use esoteric and ridiculous arguments that are inapplicable in the real world, and require a way of delivery that is even worse and more useless. I'm not really sure what my point of all this is, I just don't like debate because it's my main academic thing and I think it's silly, I'm also not sure if we really should have a general forum thread on policy, most people will have no idea what policy is really like and if anything it should cover all 3 debate events or even all forensics events because policy is the as far as I know the smallest of all forensics events because of how ridiculously progressive it has become.

Edit: and yeah I'm gonna be at Harvard

On February 16 2012 14:44 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:


Before you start CX, ask for their case. Read through it while asking CX, and try to flow everything you miss. Don't just let your opponent summarize, points, try to find the general thesis of their case and key pillars/assumptions that the entire thing relies upon that you can target generally [while flowing/attacking specifics as you look at the case first hand in prep].

I did both lay/circuit LD so I can also help you with more specific questions.

On February 16 2012 14:57 Jaso wrote:
Yeah I'm kinda disgusted by how LD becomes focused on just spreading mass arguments and theory. (though I can't speak from actual experience since I've never debated varsity).

I did pretty good at Princeton (broke and made octas) but I did absolutely awful last week at Montville, went 1-3 lol. I'm kinda worried for Harvard because novice is combined with JV... any insight on what I should expect?

^ if you hit Whippany EW or AP they're my captains :D.

edit: Also, is anyone well-acquainted with the current LD resolution? "It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to domestic violence"
I ran a neg case saying that it's actually morally praiseworthy/required.. judges really didn't like it lol.

So if I'm hitting someone who I absolutely can't understand, I should just read their case as they read (if it's on a laptop)?

On February 16 2012 14:55 itsjustatank wrote:


Using CX time to do something you should have done during their speech time is a major no-no. CX should be used to setup your upcoming arguments for your partner. Even if it's a new aff you've never seen before, you should have off-case args that work generically--set up for those.

Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Flow their arguments, don't let them turn your CX into additional speech time.

On February 16 2012 14:53 itsjustatank wrote:


So because it's hard and requires a bit of education it's worthless? You at once declare it elitist and closed and go on to talk about it being progressive, and labeling that point as a negative.

Policy, LD, and debate in general do a large part to educate middle school, high school, and university school students about ideas and topics that they would never talk about critically because of how standards-based this country's education system has become.

And in terms of you not wanting a General thread about it, this thread is certainly better than one of those threads with low-content OPs and sensationalized titles with hordes of people failing to read the content before posting. Or maybe those 'debates' with extremely little clash and tendency to fall into ad-hom and subsequent moderation action are more worthy than this thread.

I'm not sure.

On February 16 2012 15:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:


You didn't even read the post I was addressing/understand the context at all. A: this is LD, meaning he's most likely not going to have that broad a span of generic arguments to fill up his next speech, nor a partner to set up, and B this is presuming that he didn't understand anything that happened in the constructive, not just a new case.

On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:


I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc...

In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad.

On February 16 2012 15:23 itsjustatank wrote:


Ah my bad. My judge hat went on a bit too quickly; what I posted about is a big pet peeve when having to judge prelims. At any rate if he utterly could not understand the other person's speech act, especially in LD, the judge likely couldn't understand it either. You end up in a much nicer place in-round than your opponent that way,

On February 16 2012 15:21 Navillus wrote:


I'm not sure what your relation to these events is but in debate jargon progressive means that they run progressive arguments/types of arguments, e.g. theory, meta-ethics, plan inclusive counterplans, kritiks, micropoliticals, RVIs, meta-theory, skep, etc...

In the current system these events do not do a large part to educate kids, at least on the national circuit, about these issues because everyone is too focused on winning. My current cases on the domestic violence topic literally do not mention domestic violence because they are too focused on spreading esoteric philosophy and reading theory spikes, and this is not the exception this is the norm. Also comparing this threads to other bad threads doesn't make this better or something that should be kept it just means it is less relatively bad.

On February 16 2012 15:23 itsjustatank wrote:


Ah my bad. My judge hat went on a bit too quickly; what I posted about is a big pet peeve when having to judge prelims. At any rate if he utterly could not understand the other person's speech act, especially in LD, the judge likely couldn't understand it either. You end up in a much nicer place in-round than your opponent that way,

On February 16 2012 15:23 Regime wrote:
well for starters unless u are a member of the TeamLiquid admin team u cant make nething an offical thread thats ur policy. and theres no need for debate

On February 16 2012 15:30 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:
I like how this thread became an debate about forms of debate haha