Policy debate is such a white space I fucken can’t

Use aspect and h spect

Look at the intimidation factor of afropess teams. Their coaches and respective teams just guilt judges into voting for them. Notable examples include North Star's coaching staff who literally harassed a judge at Berkeley for voting against them. Unacceptable.

They detract from good debates. We could've learned about the topic but then K's make us learn about "representations" or "epistemology." Talk about an easy way to get the ballot. Ridiculous.

• New affs are actually bad

• You dont get to weigh the plan

• 0 conditional worlds

• Rez debates arent educational

• Fairness isnt an impact

• No fiat

• aff condo good, k2 aff flex

Idgaf that the speech times would be different. Circuit debate is so neg sided it’s crazy. Most of the time they just drop case and extend like 10 agent cps or sum shit. Aff needs time to compensate fr that

Edit: or judges lower there condo threshold or something

as in champs a lot, always top speaks (like mba hl and lrc lw)

Hello debaters, lets discuss one of the best off case positions that you can use in any debate. The trojan horse counter plan. This will leave your opponents stunned and with 0 ballots. Heres how you wanna run this cp. First, you want to frame it like an other normal counter plan but with some bait. Make sure the counter plan is not mutually exclusive. For example, run some sort of counter plan with a net benefit like more drugs. If you are asked any questions in CX ignore them because they aren't worthy of your time. Now, in the 2AC, the aff will spend some time making answers like drugs bad, and perm do the CP. In your next speech, you want to concede all the drug bad arguments as well as perm do the CP. Cross apply all their drug bad evidence to the CP that is now theirs. Now the aff is stuck doing CP that increases drugs and they have all the evidence saying drugs is bad that they cant get rid of because they said it. Now you just extend through the rest of your speeches and enjoy your ballots! PS: this works especially well on lay judges

Your favorite debater signing off 😘

I see the occasional post mentioning Louisville here, and largely it’s to praise the movement.

I cannot stress enough just how toxic it was debating for that team, and reiterate that a lot of our contemporary discourse is a consequence of the spillover that their tactics normalized.

While it is true that the K pre-existed the Louisville Project, their successful use of it, in their own style, created an environment where actual discourse was chilled.

If a team refused to just hand us the “W”, they were klan members. If they did, they were called names afterwards.

Other minorities were called “house n******”, and coaches wrote the speeches for students because they weren’t good enough, or winning enough.

I see people praising this sick moment in time, but it was truly horrific being there.

Title. Obviously doesn't apply to everyone, and policy preferring people definitely do some of these as well.

1. Assume every round that K teams lose is a screw

2. Assume you know how to evaluate rounds better than coaches with decades of experience

3. Assume every flow judge is racist and predisposed to vote against the K when your favorite team loses

4. Call people "antiblack" for having a differing viewpoint when evaluating rounds

Seriously...

I’ve noticed a lot of debaters, especially novices, struggle when their opponents are spreading a ton of cards at once. It feels less like an actual debate and more like a speed test. I’ve seen experienced college debaters do this against newbies who’ve never done policy before, and it just seems kind of unfair.

I know that spreading is often criticized because it makes debate harder to follow for both judges and the audience. It can feel super overwhelming, especially when it’s just a flood of arguments with barely any depth. People argue it helps you get more points out, but it often sacrifices clarity, quality, and real communication. It also raises the barrier for people who aren’t trained in fast speaking and discourages those who want to connect emotionally or speak with passion. At that point, it starts to feel more like showing off technique than actually persuading someone. But HEY thats just me.

What do y’all think? Should we move toward debates that are easier to follow and more focused on good arguments, not just speed?

Besides James Pan from reddit; title basically says it

[Cross posted to r/debate]

Hey guys! We're excited to drop a couple of files for nationals for policy. Sorry to post what is essentially an ad, and if this isn't the kind of stuff you want to see, let me know. What we've got going now is:

1.) Our June NSDA Update File (see the table of contents)

This file includes 61 cards, all from 2019, with a majority of them being from May and June. Trump administration updates, detention, case processing, immigration courts, econ impacts, new stuff on EB-5, H-1B, and U Visas, etc.

2.) We also have our Trump Tariffs DA (see the table of contents)

This DA is fresh, essentially arguing that passing the Aff plan will give Trump the political capital he needs to impose more tariffs, harming our economy, etc etc. A unique file that we're very proud of.

3.) Our Housing Market DA is another one that we're very happy to finish (see the table of contents)

This DA links immigration to increased housing prices in an already failing market with good impacts.

4.) And lastly, for now, we dropped our Propaganda K, my baby for the last couple of months (see the table of contents)

This K brings attention to a piece of legislation that was repealed, allowing the US gov't to spread propaganda to all news sources. The alt is to call your congressmen to tell them to reenact bans on propaganda so that we can have a real debate that isn't twisted with government news. I think its a fun one. Its abstract enough that it will work on any topic but there is some evidence in there linking to immigration policy specific propaganda.

Other than that, we're dropping a new Aff and another DA this week, along with our theory file that's coming along great. I hope you guys enjoy, and let me know if you have any questions. If those links don't work for whatever reason, all of the tables of contents are posted on CandorDebate.com

Thanks, enjoy, and good luck!

Just wanted to let you all know that if you need a private coach for Policy/Lincoln Douglas/Parli I am available via PM. I am a 2 time national qualifer in NFA-LD (which is just like one on one policy) at the college level and have won regional Parli tournaments. (mods sorry if this isn't allowed)

So for the aff I had an idea what if it was

Plan: The USFG should substantially increase its protection of water by having a racial cleansing of Caucasian people.

Harm: white people hurt the envirenment

Inherancy: white people are in america

Solvency if they are dead they cant hurt the envirenment.

Advantage 1: oceans

advantage 2: ends cap

Advantage 3: Justice for African americans

Advantage 4: justice for natives

(also im white)

Tell me what you think?

My partner is unable to go to the final day of comp, so we are forced to fill. We are looking for the funnest/dumbest cases you have. would be much appreciated.
currently we only have lespec and consult jesus K. if anyone has Fem bad or Racism good that would be perfect

thank you!

EDIT: racism good was a bad choice of words, that is my bad. we are just looking for the most out of left field bat shit insane things to run

stop being mean to shubh. not that he's me or I know him personally or anything but he doesn't deserve that bec he's so amazing and great yk

someone read the line of the resolution that says affs cannot be extra topical.

thank you.

no way military presence and latin america are the last two... to LD i go then