At the Meadows tournament this weekend we will be recording a joint podcast with The View From Tab. If you have questions you would like answered, put them in the comments here.
At the Meadows tournament this weekend we will be recording a joint podcast with The View From Tab. If you have questions you would like answered, put them in the comments here.
What do you think of the St. Mark's style inclusion of opp wins in the determination of seeding for elims? Better/worse than seeding based solely on speaks? Is there a third way that is better than both?
Related question – what is your opinion of JVar as a useful metric and should it be weighted more in breaking speaker point ties?
Reference St. Marks. There were 7-8 pullups in round 6 of St. Marks. Should we bring back a High-High round to try and offset this/can it be offset/avoided?
If you're curious, they somewhat addressed this in the following podcast: http://podcast.the3nr.com/2010/09/season-1-episod…
Pull-ups are frequent and inevitable in even numbered rounds due to side constraints.
What is the best way to approach specific Neg prep on such a large/moreover diverse topic? It seems like we now have multiple different categories of the topic that are more diverse than last year where there were really on 6 types of Affs.
Do you think it is ok for judges to call for speeches to read along with during the debate? I know some judges do this to watch out for card clipping but do you think that if this becomes a common practice that it could cause a lack of flowing among judges like it has among debaters?
If you want an immediate answer to this question you can check out the following podcast:
http://podcast.the3nr.com/2010/11/season-2-episod…
The discussion starts around 1:04:30… I believe the consensus was that this was bad overall and that this practice could lead to trivialization of the actual debaters.
How do you guys feel the topic has developed thus far, relative to what you guys felt were the "popular" affs at camp? Is there an obvious side bias?
With the passage of SKFTA, is politics a weaker position overall? Snide comments are welcome.
How should the affirmative approach answering a kritik that they aren't prepared to answer/came as a surprise (assuming it's not shoddy evidence)?
How do you think the technology/science of affs has affected the topic this year? Like, what sort of burden does the aff have for being able to explain the scientific legitimacy of their aff besides just having a cool solvency advocate, and how useful is it on the neg to sort of push/question the aff on this?
In addition to the development of the topic on the aff, how do you think the neg strategies of the topic have been changing since camp?
I know this is a big conversation, but I am curious to hear a discussion about answering critical affs/affs that don't defend fiat/plan other then just framework. (specific to this topic if possible)
How much of an advantage do you consider debating in middle school to be? What can younger debaters do to close the gap and not get discouraged?
impact calc especially in the 2nr. how much is overanalyzing/what type of timeframe/magnitude distinctions have been effective for y'all as judges in the past.
What's the best way to answer government shutdown/economic collapse style case turns on the aff? So many affs are long-term and unfortunately the politics disad is not.
It seems like this year an increasingly common 1AC strategy is to fit as many contrived internal links to as many contrived impacts as possible. I understand that to some degree most 1ACs are phony, but it seems especially gross this year. What is the best way to approach the case debate when hitting teams that read these affs?