A few people have asked me how the collaborative research project went. Notes below
Monthly Archives: December 2009
Interesting IR discussion
3NR Wordle
I dont really see how this is useful but I got a teacher email about this thing called wordle and thought I would try it on the 3NR
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/1412117/3nr
Some depressing notes include the size of “like” and “zizek”. Many others exist.
More Google Wave Invites
Apparently I am a google wave bad ass (actually I think I am just the only person in the country who actually uses it…) but I now have approx 20 more invites and have already invited everyone I know (which is only 3 people). Soooooooo….. I thought about writing up another contest type thing but response to the last one was pretty lackluster. So instead I will give an invite to anyone who posts a good card on any topic in the comments.Make sure you include your gmail address.
Answering impact calc in the 1ar 2- the basics- The DA does not turn the case
The most important impact argument you have to answer is “turns the case”. This is something a lot of judges latch onto when deciding close debates and it always goes badly for the aff. Basically once they can see there is not a clear aff ballot they kind of go “eh, disad turns the case, neg” without needing to put in much more thought. Not that this judging approach is entirely without merit mind you- often turns the case will be the only actual comparative impact assessment given by either side.
AT: Zizek
It might come as a shock to you all that I am the one posting this because afterall who needs K answers when you have the Murray card. But as I was perusing the journals at Borders yesterday I found this article / response to Zizek. It uses many big words and incoherent babble, but the gist of it says don’t listen to Zizek.
Short note on debating qualifications
Let me begin by going through the bastardized version of the toulmin model I teach students (I have zero interest in debating the merits of this bastardization or how it differs from the proper model). An argument consists of 3 parts
Answering Impact Calc in the 1AR- Part 1 Opening thoughts
The 2NC extends politics and does their usual song and dance:
The disad o/w the case- timeframe, probability, magnitude, and here is a card that says were there to be a war, the affirmative’s advantage would in fact become a disadvantage!
This is where most 1AR’s fold and pretend if they ignore it that it will go away. There even seems to be an inverse relationship between quality of 2NC impact analysis (or outlandishness occasionally) and propensity of the 1AR to answer it. If this description fits your 1AR’s you should probably change that.