Mukwonago? More like MEME-wonago *loud wheeze*

Good debaters when someone asks if they won their round

dyke2watchout4-deactivated20260

everyone else when they break with top speaks and still act surprised

Circuit debate is like a bunch of teenagers verbally masturbating. It’s only good for those doing it and the only people who enjoy watching it are perverts.

RJ (via dyke2watchout4)

#i...#i... don't even...#what?????????#still thought it was funny tho...

When you didn’t break and your coach wants you to watch outrounds but you’re too busy being salty

Now I kind of want to write a case that revolves around the epistemological role of the judge arguing that they should accept outright lies in round to avoid intervention and also because there’s no way to come to true knowledge of anything etc etc

Then blatantly lie about the topic in our case and rebuttles

hungoverjudge

This would not be as terrible as it seems: like something that says no avoid bringing in outside biases, judges should use as little outside knowledge as possible, and anything that’s untrue that goes unrefuted should be treated as true for the purposes of this round. Besides, since this round isn’t going to lead to actual real-world change, it doesn’t matter if votes are based on lies, since we can argue with an untrue statement as readily as a true statement. In fact we can argue with a lie easier, since we can say, No, that’s a lie.

My god, what have I done?

The real problem is that everyone would hate me, including my debate partner and myself

kingxfisher

@ webmaster can i run this?

^

wrong blog hah a h a h a h a

the answer is “no, you best not.”

i’m disappointed

flowpaper

some professional and legit Debate Terms™

debate (de·bate) noun

An activity in which two or more high-schoolers stand in a room in front of a judge/judges to argue about topics that oftentimes extend beyond their actual knowledge.

“that debate was fun!”

deb8 (de·bate) noun

Slang for ‘debate’ (see above).

“that deb8 was fun!”

deb9 (dəˈb·nīn) noun

A deb8 so gr8 debate so great that it transcends debate, and can only be quantified through another word.

“that deb9 was the best round i’ve ever had. i would rather re-live that round than meet the love of my life.”

deb7 (dəˈb·sevən) noun

A debate that was such a failure on your record and in your memories that it no longer is even a debate.

“that deb7 was bad enough for me to consider quitting debate.”

debater (dəˈbādər) noun

A (typically salty) highschooler who enjoys arguing with other salty high schoolers at unreasonably early and late hours over their weekends.

“i’m not bitter, i’m just a debater.”

deb8r (dəˈbādər) noun

Slang for ‘debater’ (see above).

“i’m not bitter, i’m just a deb8r.”

deb9r (dəˈb·nīnər) noun

A debater so great that they transcend the activity itself—making all other debaters seem like mere plebeians in their presence.

“i went against a deb9r that last round. they came into the room with a case finer than their 0.32 g2s, and flowed on legal size paper. upon their appearance, my hopes were quickly replaced with tears.”

deb7r (dəˈb·sevənər) noun

A plebeian debater.

“as i don’t flow, steal cases, use prep time to eat food, and sit during speeches, it’s safe to conclude that i am a deb7r.”

awaiting-my-gay-rat-wedding

dab8 (dæb - ate) noun

A meme-filled debate that manages to still be educational, typically involving at least one memelord but potentially involving none at all. Dab8s without a memelord physically present often occur due to the theft of a dab8er’s shells by a deb7er who looks up to the memelord. The spoken word tends to be accompanied by a dabbing movement, however slight.

“went against deverey last round...” “i’m so sorry. how bad did you get beat?” “actually, we had a great dab8, and the judge thought it was hilarious! we won!”

#lol #policy debate #debaters #deb8 #mukdebate #dab8 #dab9 #amirite

I love going to national tournaments where people from expensive boarding schools in Utah are used to debating about queer people as an abstract concept & u can casually hit them with your “yeah, I mean, as a Real Live Gay Person...” & watch them get really uncomfortable

2AC: “Topicality suppresses queer voices”

Them: “well.. our T - we’re talking about.. there’s in-round abuse happening, we aren’t talking about out of round.”

Me: “hm, well in-round my queer voice is being suppressed so…”

Them: *uncomfortable stammering & frantically trying to move on to another question*

this person is def my favourite mutual now

Debate Mood #5

Getting some fresh new G2 pens and feeling like you’re going to win the tournament

mmmmmmMMMMMMMMM

Standing up to give the AFF speech and then realizing you actually prepped a NEG

at least we’ll always have shitty killer line-by-line

Speech VS Debate Judges

Debate: I went with the Con because they succinctly stated their contentions and gave enough elaboration for me to believe in the backbone of their side. The South Korea point was a unique argument that really gave leverage over the Pro.

Speech: ay lmao the pearls on ur necklace are a milimeter too wide, finna drop you the 6.

lol kinda not truuuu

ahem cough @ dan han

Now I kind of want to write a case that revolves around the epistemological role of the judge arguing that they should accept outright lies in round to avoid intervention and also because there’s no way to come to true knowledge of anything etc etc

Then blatantly lie about the topic in our case and rebuttles

hungoverjudge

This would not be as terrible as it seems: like something that says no avoid bringing in outside biases, judges should use as little outside knowledge as possible, and anything that’s untrue that goes unrefuted should be treated as true for the purposes of this round. Besides, since this round isn’t going to lead to actual real-world change, it doesn’t matter if votes are based on lies, since we can argue with an untrue statement as readily as a true statement. In fact we can argue with a lie easier, since we can say, No, that’s a lie.

My god, what have I done?

The real problem is that everyone would hate me, including my debate partner and myself

kingxfisher

@ webmaster can i run this?

^

wrong blog hah a h a h a h a

hungoverjudge

The most important word in debate

If I asked what that word is, there are lots of options you might choose. ‘Why?’. ‘Because’, ‘therefore; etc. These are all very good words to use. But I want to bring up a different thing to consider. The word “yes”

One approach to debate is to work to refute all of an opponents claims and get as much ink on the flow as possible. Another approach is to take a step back and ask “even if my opponent wins this argument, can I still win the round?” If you can still win the round even though you dropped an argument, then putting a counter-argument there isn’t exactly mission critical. This means you can argue with the more important stuff. Often this is the higher, more meta-level arguments, or the more value/criterion-kind of argument, or its an argument on your side that shows how you outweigh any possible offense they could have.

There are benefits to this approach. Flat out conceding parts of an opponents case gives you more time to develop your own arguments in your extensions in your 1AR/1NR. Also, by focusing on fewer arguments that are higher up the food chain, so to speak, you essentially list your voting issues, and more clearly paint a picture to the judge about the contrasts between your side and your opponent’s side. What it does it let you finish your first rebuttal, and then start your second rebuttal, with what is essentially a clear thesis: this is what my side argues. Clear advocacy can help judges because they know what they’re looking for.

Can this technique backfire catastrophically? It can, but the ways it backfires are more faults of over-applying it, and misunderstanding something your opponent said, rather than something wrong with conceding an argument.

#im doing this at state

stock-issues

So there’s an interactive app for learning Deleuzian postmodernism and Lincoln Douglas Debate… Taking the debate world to new heights.

this is amazing

debategrl

when you read anarchy good

net-benefits-deactivated2016031

“if we get our own debate room i’m hanging this on the wall” - acfb&c

Debate resources master post:

Online Stopwatch

Cross-X - policy stuff, both social and serious evidence trading/ advice

The Value Criterion - LD framework evidence and strategy disclosure

The Chair - Congress debate blog

NSD Update - LD news and articles with advice/discussion. They also have a great national community!

Premier Debate - (LD) Debate jobs, articles, and strategy disclosure

Google Scholar - This is my preferred way to research. It even has a “cite” button to save time.

Google News - Save time. Make it your home page. You can also search through all news articles if you’re looking through something specific.

JSTOR - This is great if you need access to a specific article or you can’t find anything on google scholar.

Verbatim - If you haven’t already, just download it. It will make organizing your research much easier.

paperless debate - I haven’t used them a ton, but it seems like a great way to stay on top of nat circuit debate. They have links to the wiki and stuff.

Open Evidence Project - Self-explanatory. I don’t know why I don’t use this more.

Other:

Tumblr’s okay, but remember that if you send us asks we’re only students, not coaches. Basically everyone here I know is brilliant and will do their best, but do take their advice with a grain of salt.

If you go to camp, friend your lab leaders (as long as they’re cool with that)! It will a) get you into the debate community more, which is good, and b) they might be willing to help you over the season.

Friend debaters! They are awesome people, and the community is one of the best resources there is. You can trade prep against mutual enemies’ cases or just bitch about them. Either way, it’s great.

Stay away from reddit. You can join their dropboxes if you want, but I left because most of the evidence is shit. (Obviously. You wouldn’t share good prep with complete strangers.) Most of the advice is mediocre at best and it’s mostly traditional debaters trying way too hard to be progressive without understanding what the fuck they’re running. Unless you like troll cases.

Feel free to reblog this and add stuff I’ve forgotten/stuff for other events, though I’ve tried to be inclusive!

Bonus:

Everyday debate - Stuff for PF, LD, and CX. It examines the feasability of multiple positions on the topic (not much for cards, but good analysis). It’s easy to understand even if you’re not super up on the lingo.

Debate Central - Again, PF, LD, and CX (sorry, congress kids). They post topic briefs for free!

SpeechGeek Market - I don’t buy briefs because I’m cheap but if that’s your thing I’m sure these are very good briefs. They also have funny posters and stuff.

Victory Briefs - Again, I don’t really buy my briefs, but these have a good reputation and also good topic analysis.

net-benefits-deactivated2016031

Reblogged with more stuff added. Be aware that this is LD-heavy because that’s what I do. Feel free to message me suggestions for things you want to see on this list.

a cool fucking bean is def on board