tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post6289953603639916569..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: how to write an LD caseJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-84994320786763275802010-11-01T17:26:06.855-07:002010-11-01T17:26:06.855-07:001. Evidence isn't always required; it's mo...1. Evidence isn't always required; it's mostly for empirically backing up a claim that needs it. For instance, in the third contention, when I argue that drug abuse will be imitated, a statistic might help shore up the argument. <br /><br />2. It's hard to determine exactly how fast is too fast. My basic advice for "the spread" is in four parts: <br /><br />First, listen for taglines.<br /><br />Second, get clarity in CX. It's not the best thing to do with your CX time, but it's better than going into your rebuttals clueless.<br /><br />Third, group contentions like mad.<br /><br />Fourth, if you can, attack your opponent's case at the root: show how its V/C (framework) is so flawed that the rest of the advocacy is immaterial. Even use the metaphor of sawing down a tree at the trunk to ensure that your judge "gets" your strategy.<br /><br />I should probably devote a whole post to the spread. I'll put it in the queue...Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-40465477227571481592010-11-01T09:22:52.984-07:002010-11-01T09:22:52.984-07:00I noticed in your sample case you didn't have...I noticed in your sample case you didn't have evidence. Is it ok not to provide some? Also, what is a good speaking speed in LD date in terms of word/min? I just came back from one and one of my match speak so fast that I couldn't really understand his arguments so I couldn't counter his case so I lost. What do I do in situation like this? Thanks advance for your advise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-82376792742551754162008-01-15T16:49:00.000-08:002008-01-15T16:49:00.000-08:00Where I come from, the criterion has to be warrant...Where I come from, the criterion has to be warranted in terms of the value.<BR/><BR/>Ever since I was a novice my coaches have insinuated that i have 2-3 warrants for why my criterion links to the value and I think that they make it that much harder to take out the case and i noticed that the AC had no warrants for the criterion aside from a sentence which was unwarranted.<BR/><BR/>Also, i've learned that the value ought to be straight out of the resolution and thus answer the question. <BR/>So for the steroids example the value should be morality. The criterion would go on to act as a weighing mechanism to see which side better achieves the value (a world w/ steroids, or a world w/o)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-49322204307692702492008-01-05T18:22:00.000-08:002008-01-05T18:22:00.000-08:00I know the whole point of the post was how to writ...I know the whole point of the post was how to write a speech in general, not about whether or not it is immoral to use performance inhancing drugs, but I can't resist the temptation 2 point out 2things on both sides:<BR/><BR/>Aff: If someone is gaining an advantage then it means it is not a situation of equal drug use. A situation in which everyone uses the maximum amount of steroids is NOT prohibited by the resolution, since no1 would have the advantage, and thus an aff would not need to defend against this.<BR/><BR/>Neg: Medical drugs are performance inhancing. If I have strep throught and I have to play a baseball game in 3 days, and I take anyibiotics, my gameplay will be much better than if I have strep throat. The same would go for life-saving drugs. So a neg could argue this resolution makes it immoral for an athlete to take life-saving medicine and continue playing.<BR/><BR/>In terms of linking those to how to write a debate speech, #1 shows how an AFF should try to lower the BOP as much as possible, and #2 shows how the NEG needs to widen the scope of the resolution. <BR/><BR/>SO maybe that was a teensy bit relevant after all.<BR/><BR/>-LD n00bAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-90996049038254293782008-01-02T19:51:00.000-08:002008-01-02T19:51:00.000-08:00anonymous, your observations are excellent; for #1...<B>anonymous</B>, your observations are excellent; for #1, I would only say that it depends on which region you're from. In more traditional areas, judges expect the whole oratorical package, rather than simply, "I affirm," and arguments to follow. <BR/><BR/>I coach at Capital HS. Thanks for stopping by, and see you on the circuit.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-90150037081418664952008-01-02T18:12:00.000-08:002008-01-02T18:12:00.000-08:00Where my last post says "and functions as *both* a...Where my last post says "and functions as *both* a way to meet the value." that sentence should be finished with "and weigh the round". ;)<BR/><BR/>By the way - do you mind if I ask what school[s] you coach at? I compete on the Northwest Washington circuit & was just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-1373941216631327242008-01-02T17:53:00.000-08:002008-01-02T17:53:00.000-08:00I offer the same disclaimer -- I do not claim that...I offer the same disclaimer -- I do not claim that the suggestions I am about to offer are the only way, I just find that these are the strategies that have helped me win several rounds.<BR/><BR/>1. Introductions and conclusions waste time -- even 30 seconds is 30 seconds taht could have been spent making arguments, potentially ones that your opponent would have dropped and you could extend in the rebuttal.<BR/><BR/>2. If the resolution asks a question of justice or morality, I would take that and make it the value. The values really aren't important because they're all inherently vague -- I always equate them: "I offer justice as a value, my opponent offers x, but in the end these are both vague, generally good things we want to achieve in the world. Instead, we need to focus on how to get there, which is why you are going to default to the criterion debate."<BR/><BR/>3. I would never make morality a criterion, because it is unbelievably vague. The criterion should be something that is extremely specific, clearly definited, and functions as *both* a way to meet the value. If you win that your criteiron is the best way to achieve the value, then you win that the round should be judged that way. For example, with the plea bargaining topic, the value might be justice and the criterion might be prosecutorial accuracy. Under the criterion, the argument would be that you can't determine one's due until you determine the crime that has been committed, making it a prerequisite to any conception of justice. If you win that this is the only way to reach justice, then obviously teh judge needs to weigh the round based on accuracy, because that is the only way to determine who best achieves justice.<BR/><BR/>4. Two other time-saving suggestions -- keep the titles of sections quick, ie "Definitions", "Resolution Analysis"; it's implied that you are about to offer definitions, you don't need to state it. Also, on the negative, I never read the resolution or read definitions if they are unnecessary, my NCs start out "I negate, the value is _____". If there are necessary framework arguments, I'll make them after "I negate".<BR/><BR/>5. Make several arguments under the criterion about why it is the best way to reach the value, then just extend whichever one your opponent drops. It makes winning the standards debate really easy, and is thus very strategic.<BR/><BR/>6. I always write cases with one contention and multiple subpoints. This, for the most part, prevents you from being spread. If all of your warrants are very specific to a criterion, then there are not as many diverse arguments that people will have prepped several answers to. It also creates a clear story for the judge, and makes it so that any piece of offense is enough to win the round because they all fulfill the standards.<BR/><BR/>These are all things that I learned/picked up from debaters that have experienced a lot of success, and I've found all of them to help me in several rounds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-38958656302786216072008-01-02T14:24:00.000-08:002008-01-02T14:24:00.000-08:00okiedebater,1. I think the resolution (which I ma...<B>okiedebater</B>,<BR/><BR/>1. I think the resolution (which I made up, so any potential ambiguities are my fault) could be reasonably interpreted to include the agent's intention and knowledge.<BR/><BR/>2. I'm glad you noticed that; it was one of the reasons I wrote the case this way. A consistent Aff would have to say "Yep, but that's a different resolution," I think.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-79023659727534579842008-01-02T10:17:00.000-08:002008-01-02T10:17:00.000-08:00Just a few questions about this practice resolutio...Just a few questions about this practice resolution:<BR/>1) The Affirmative's position is that it is the athlete's intent to gain an athletic advantage. If he were then given the performance-enhancing drugs without his knowledge, would there be a moral difference?<BR/>2) If performance-enhancing drugs are immoral at least partially because of the fact that they could make things too easy on the athletes, leading to laziness, and favor the wealthy, could that not also mean that other things within the realms of athletics, such as large disparities in budgets and quality of facilities also be immoral?okiedebaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10545110271646642828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-35649020372893517892007-12-31T13:59:00.000-08:002007-12-31T13:59:00.000-08:00This is just my opinion, but I like to have 3 on A...This is just my opinion, but I like to have 3 on Aff, 2-3 on Neg. It's okay when my opponents have up to 4 on the Affirmative, but any more than that and they are sacrificing evidence just to try to keep me from hitting all their points...okiedebaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10545110271646642828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-32665842726857173462007-12-30T21:33:00.000-08:002007-12-30T21:33:00.000-08:00Here's one method to writing an LD case...kinda.Wh...Here's one method to writing an LD case...kinda.<BR/><BR/>What's your thought on how many contentions you should have? I usually think three is the basic number... but I went against this kid who had like 6-9 and in the end, I was so bored of listening that I didn't hit every contention (cause like even if you ask what the contentions are during the crossX ... you can always talk a lot about <I>some</I> contentions).. therefore.. some are still missed.. and you win for having a lot of contentions... -.-''Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com