DOCSLIB.ORG

DO NOT LOSE THIS BOOKLET! Bring It with You to Each Day of Competition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DO NOT LOSE THIS BOOKLET! Bring It with You to Each Day of Competition JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL SPEECH STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE EXPLANATORY NOTES Numerical ranking questions — judges were asked to rank the following on a scale of 1-5: • Delivery (Rate of Delivery) — 1 = Slower, 5 = Faster DO NOT LOSE THIS • Evidence (Amount of Evidence) — 1 = Little, 5 = Lots BOOKLET! Bring it with you to • Appeals — 1 = Emotional, 5 = Factual • Criteria — 1 = Unnecessary, 5 = Essential each day of competition. • Approach (to Topic) — 1 = Philosophical, 5 = Pragmatic Experience — G = LD debater in high school, H = Coach LD in high school, A = Policy debater in high school, D = NDT debater in college, E = CEDA debater in college, F = Coach CEDA in college Debaters may ask any judge for a brief explanation of his or her judging philosophy prior to the round. JUDGE COMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE HADF ALDERSON, LINDA Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 4 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting a value and weighing it with a criterion as opposed to a second value. I expect well structured persuasive communication with evidence to support all assertions, including the value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments as well as extending their own cases. I judge as a critic of argument in that each student should persuade me as to the credence of their arguments through analysis and organization as well as refutation. In other words, I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case. HA ALFORD, BRIAN Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 3 3 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement I am an old school LD judge. A value and criteria are ESSENTIAL! Please keep it to topical arguments. Topicality and Counterplans belong in Policy - not LD! GHA ANDREWS, BLAKE Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 4 5 5 2 3 Philosophy Statement Update Feb 2018: I enjoy judging high quality K/ Performance debaters and am reading more critical literature in my free time. Additionally, I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments. I have voted on disclosure theory multiple times this year alone. Additionally, I am normally somewhat familiar with topic literature. In the past I have cut cards for Premier's briefs and normally coach at least a few kids on each topic. Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I took this from M. Overing's paradigm and I think it sums up what I want debaters to do in a round pretty well. "If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat." Side note ignore any grammar problems I’m writing this quickly. LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards) page 1 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE COMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE GH BERRYHILL, BEKKA Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 4 4 3 4 3 Philosophy Statement I believe that LD debate is a value debate thus the better value of the round should win. Framework is very important. The affirmative should frame the round. I can flow anything, but do prefer a more conversational speed. I love clash in a round - don't be catty though. GH BRENNER, KYLE Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Win the value/criterion debate and win the debate. H BROOKSHIER-DELEON, Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach KYLA Resolution of Issues Equal 3 5 3 5 3 Philosophy Statement I'm looking for someone who is not only persuasive but also follows the traditional value debate format. No spreading, provide a road map and give voters. Make sure you provide evidence to prove your points. G CABALLERO, DARCY Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 4 4 4 5 3 Philosophy Statement I believe that LD and CX share some qualities, so I will listen to most progressive arguments. In terms of technical skills in debating, I'm more traditional. I don't prefer speed above fast- paced speaking. I prefer a framework debate over contentional level. Your terminal impact should not be mass extinction or nuke war unless it is directly tied to the topic - if you make it that, the link needs to be unequivocally clear. Signpost as much as possible - don't make me guess where you are on the flow. Don't speak past each other during CX and allow your opponent the opportunity to actually answering your question without your interruption. Any and all wild takes on the topic need to be unequivocally linked to the topic. Clash is a must. page 2 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE COMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE G CALDWELL, ALEXANDRA Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 2 3 3 5 3 Philosophy Statement I am a traditional judge and appreciate a lot of value and criteria debate. Communication is a large part of this debate for me. GH CANNON, LACY Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 2 3 3 4 3 Philosophy Statement LD Debate is value debate, therefore, I want students to remember the importance of the value. Don't speak too quickly. Remember to listen to each other. I think that sometimes debaters just respond to what was said and don't actually listen to and answer the argument. GH CANTRELL, RACHEL Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 3 4 3 4 2 Philosophy Statement I like traditional or classic framework. The argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. Explain, support, and defend your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts.​​ Make sure to link every argument back to your value and a value-criterion.​ ​Explain how it is preferable to your opponents value and value-criterion. ​I don’t like rapid speech unless it’s clear. If I can’t understand what you’re saying I ​can’t flow it. Go moderate speed and make sure you are clear. Make sure you signpost clearly. GH CLARK, MEGHAN Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 1 1 3 4 1 Philosophy Statement I am primarily interested in value/criterion clash throughout the round. In order to win a round, a debater MUST demonstrate the superiority of his/her value in the context of the resolution. Use of evidence is important, but not as important as demonstrating the logical connections between value/criterion and contentions and being able to defend these connections during rebuttals. I am much more interested in philosophy in an LD round than in pragmatics. A case does not have to have a pragmatic application in order to be effective as long as it can be substantiated philosophically. I do not like rapid delivery in LD, and debaters will lose speaker points if they deliver their speeches at an overly rapid rate. If I cannot understand a speech because of overly rapid speaking, this could potentially impact the outcome of the round. Please speak at a reasonable rate of speed. page 3 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE COMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE GHADEF COUNCIL, NATHANIEL Communication Skills Delivery Evidence Appeals Criteria Approach Resolution of Issues Equal 3 3 4 5 1 Philosophy Statement Remember that LD is primarily a debate of competing world views. While contention level debate is necessary to prove or disprove the framework of the opposing sides, please don't lose focus on the thesis. I will listen to whatever arguments you are willing and capable of running. I do not down any particular argument on it's face, so you are welcome to run more progressive arguments. Along those lines, I expect solid refutation of the arguments your opponents put on the flow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Debate Tips & Tricks
    Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 Home About Us ∠ For Debaters & Coaches ∠ News & Events ∠ Join the Movement Debate Tips & Tricks Partners & Partner Supporters: Schools: Alvarez Central Click Here to download Debate 101: This is a helpful guide to Policy Debate written by Bill & Will Smelko detailing everything 3 you need to know from Rudiments of Rhetoric to Debate Theory. E 5 tips to help you win Juanita every debate round: Sanchez 1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself. Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at Mount the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours! A Pleasant common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well. Take into account the Paul Cuffee judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/ Page 1 of 4 Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point. This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, Woonsocket shaking her head) that she understands you. 2. Always think comparatively. Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said. If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].
    [Show full text]
  • Page Sub-Page Type Title Learning Goals (Students Will Be Able To...) Attachment One Attachment Two Attachment Three
    Page Sub-page Type Title Learning Goals (Students will be able to...) Attachment One Attachment Two Attachment Three Coaching Coaching 10-Minute Speaker Short Activities Resources Resources Roles Practice Coaching Before, Coaching Coaching Best Practice During, and After Resources Resources Document Tournaments Coaching Coaching Best Practice Coaching Resources Resources Document Fundamentals Coaching Coaching Best Practice Coaching the Resources Resources Document Affirmative Coaching Coaching Best Practice Coaching the Resources Resources Document Negative Coaching Coaching Glossary-of-Debate- Document Resources Resources Terms Coaching Coaching Best Practice Ideas for Culture and Resources Resources Document Norm Building Coaching Coaching Quick Speech Short Activities Resources Resources Activities Short Speaking Coaching Coaching Short Activities Games for the First Resources Resources Few Practices Coaching Student 1NC Block Template Note Sheet Resources Resources for Topicality Coaching Student Template 8.5 11 Flowsheet Resources Resources Coaching Student Template 8.5 14 Flowsheet Resources Resources Coaching Student Debate Observer Note Sheet Resources Resources Debrief Worksheet Coaching Student Debate Terms Document Resources Resources Glossary Coaching Student Guide for Novice Document Resources Resources Policy Debaters Coaching Student Topicality Note Sheet Resources Resources Worksheet Tournament 1 Coaching Student Checklist Checklist for Resources Resources Students Coaching Coach IT Video Edit Student Records Resources Introduction to Coaching Coach IT Video Speechwire for Resources Coaches Coaching Registering for Coach IT Video Resources Tournaments Coaching Coach IT Video Roster Management Resources Team Reporting Coaching Coach IT Video from Tabroom to Resources Your UDL - directly respond to specific arguments. - generate arguments under time constraints. Debate Lesson Argumentation Lesson Chain Debates Library ▪ Respond to oral arguments with direct refutation.
    [Show full text]
  • Beg. CX Robertson-Markham
    Jonathan Robertson, Sudan H.S. and James Markham, Anton H.S. An Introduction to UIL CX Debate UIL WTAMU SAC - September 23rd, 2017 Beatriz Melendez and Jose Luis Melendez, 2-A UIL CX Debate State Champions 2016 “You can do it!” -The Waterboy Introduction - Brief video as students and coaches enter: (Debate class video) What is CX Debate? Policy debate. Policy = evidence. Lots of evidence. This event will change your life. One student’s story that ends submerged. So, are you ready to “Suit Up”? The Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. “Debate is blood sport, only your weapons are words.” 2 - Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters The Speeches and their Times: 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 2NC) (never use prep time before CX periods) 1st Negative Constructive (1NC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1AC) 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1NC) 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC=8 min) (2NC + 1NR = Negative Block) CX (3 min by the 2AC) 1st Negative Rebuttal(1NR=5 min) 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR=5 min) 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR=5 min) 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR=5 min) Each team receives 8 minutes of prep time that may be used according to their strategy. Citation of evidence Evidence must be contiguous. And, citations done correctly, i.e.: Frank, 2015 [Walter M. Frank (legal scholar, attorney), “Individual Rights and citation → the Political Process: A Proposed Framework for Democracy Defining Cases,” 3 Southern University Law Review 35:47, Fall, 2015, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Your Voice
    FINDING YOUR VOICE FINDING YOUR VOICE A Comprehensive Guide to Collegiate Policy Debate Allison Hahn Taylor Ward Hahn Marie-Odile N. Hobeika International Debate Education Association New York, London & Amsterdam Published by: International Debate Education Association 105 East 22nd Street New York, NY 10010 Copyright © 2013 by Allison Hahn, Taylor Ward Hahn, and Marie-Odile N. Hobeika This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hahn, Allison. Finding your voice : a comprehensive guide to collegiate policy debate / Allison Hahn, Taylor Ward Hahn, Marie-Odile N. Hobeika. pages cm ISBN 978-1-61770-051-4 1. Debates and debating. I. Hahn, Taylor Ward. II. Hobeika, Marie-Odile N. III. Title. PN4181.H24 2013 808.53--dc23 2012042433 Design by Kathleen Hayes Printed in the USA CONTENTS Preface ............................................... vii Chapter 1: Basics of Policy Debate ...................... 1 Chapter 2: The Policy Debate Squad .................... 11 Chapter 3: The Topic Process ........................... 16 Chapter 4: Arguments ................................. 22 Chapter 5: Evidence ................................... 35 Chapter 6: Responsibilities of the Affirmative and Negative .............................................. 59 Chapter 7: Speaking and Flowing ....................... 67 Chapter 8: Speeches ................................... 76 Chapter 9: Cross-Examination ......................... 97 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Is a Genuinely Sustainable, Locally-Led, Politically-Smart
    Is a genuinely sustainable, locally-led, politically-smart approach to economic governance and Business Environment Reform possible? Lessons from 10 years implementing ENABLE in Nigeria Gareth Davies, November 2017 Lessons from 10 years of ENABLE in Nigeria 1 Contents Introduction 4 A. What does it mean to be sustainable, locally-led, and politically-smart? 6 B. How sustainable, locally-led, and politically-smart are mainstream approaches? 10 C. How was ENABLE different, in approach and in practice? 13 D. What did ENABLE achieve, and what difference did the approach make? 22 E. How do donors help (and hinder) implementation of a genuinely sustainable, locally-led, politically-smart approach? 31 Conclusions 34 References 35 The author would like to thank the entire ENABLE1 and ENABLE2 team, particularly Kevin Conroy (the ENABLE2 Team Leader), and the Senior Component Managers – Adenike Mantey, Abosede Paul-Obameso, Helen Bassey, and Habiba Jambo – without whose hard work and dedication the sucacess of ENABLE1 and 2, and therefore this paper, would not have been possibale. Special thanks also goes to David Elliott and Gavin Anderson, who take a good deal of credit for designing, shaping, and guiding the ENABLE programme over the years. Thanks also to everyone who commented on drafts of this paper, including David Elliott, Kevin Conroy, Kevin Seely, and Dan Hetherington. The views expressed in this paper are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of Adam Smith International or the UK Department for International Development. 2 Glossary
    [Show full text]
  • Badgerland Pref Book
    James Madison Memorial and Middleton High Schools proudly host Badgerland Debate Tournament November 13-14, 2015 Judge Philosophy Book Updated as of 9:35 pm, 11/12/2015 LINCOLN-DOUGLAS JUDGES .............................................................................................................................. 4 Bailey, Kevin ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Beaver, Zack ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Berger, Marcie ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Burdt, Lauren .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Dean, John .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Dempsey, Richard ............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Fischer, Jason .......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Niles Debate Curriculum Guide
    Debate SO3D01 Curriculum Guide Niles Township High Schools, District 219 Ms. Katie Gjerpen Mr. Eric Oddo Table of Contents: Department Structure……………………………………3 Learning Targets…………………………………………4 Syllabus…………………………………………………..7 Pacing Guide…………………………………………….14 Instructional Materials…………………………………...26 Assessment Materials…………………………………...122 2 Department Structure: 3 Debate Learning Targets: Learning Target (1) - Common Core Skills A. I can read and interpret an historical document. B. I can recognize the difference between facts and opinions. C. I can write and defend a thesis. D. I can write a coherent paragraph using a claim, evidence, and a warrant. E. I can interpret maps, charts, graphs, and political cartoons. F. I can connect facts to construct meaning and make logical inferences. G. I can take notes to organize historical content. H. I can utilize the political spectrum to analyze historical events. Learning Target (2)-Advanced Research A. I can use electronic resources to find debate evidence. B. I can compile debate evidence into block format so it can be used during a round. C. I can identify quality sources and find qualifications of authors with ease. Learning Target (3)-The Affirmative A. I can explain the major components of the 1AC. B. I can construct a 1AC that places the Affirmative in strategic position over the Negative. C. I can extend case arguments in the 2AC, 1AR and 2AR effectively. D. I can describe why the impacts of the Affirmative outweigh the impacts of the Negative disadvantages, counter plan net benefits and kritik impacts. E. I can utilize Affirmative theory arguments to my advantage and to the Negative’s disadvantage during a debate round.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegemony Advantage
    Middle School Packet 10 Hegemony Advantage - SCS Impact Framing Extinction from nuclear war dwarfs all other impact calculus – reducing nuclear risk is morally required Jonathan Schell, 2000, Fate of the Earth, pp. 93-96, Jonathan Schell was an American author and was a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. In 2003, he was a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, and in 2005, a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Yale's Center for the Study of Globalization, whose work primarily dealt with campaigning against nuclear weapons, https://books.google.com/books?id=tYKJsAEs1oQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=jonathan+schell+fate+of+the+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEw j2p6fzmbXOAhXJCMAKHZsID_QQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=to%20say%20that%20human%20extinction&f=false To say that human extinction is a certainty would, of course, be a misrepresentation – just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. To begin with, we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. If one does occur, the adversaries may not use all their weapons. If they do use all their weapons, the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere, may be moderate. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme, the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely, and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency.
    [Show full text]
  • Debater Developmental Benchmarks
    Debater Developmental Benchmarks Growth of a CDL Debater: Key Benchmarks In order to measure the qualitative growth a CDL debater, the Chicago Debate League uses designated benchmarks for each year of a CDL debater's development. These benchmarks help CDL coaches and administrators design teaching strategies and methods, and help them assess the progress of individual debaters and of debate teams as a whole. Qualitative benchmarks also assist the CDL in balancing the crucial focus on the scope and breadth of programming - student participation metrics - with results-oriented and sustained commitment to programming that is qualitatively meaningful, has depth, is consistent with broader standards of rigor within the broader context of high school competitive academic debate, and perhaps most importantly, produces measurable learning outcomes aligned with broader academic goals. The numbers attached to each benchmark are for reference purposes and do not imply sequential ordering to their teaching or learning, though year two benchmarks build on year one benchmarks, and likewise year three/four benchmarks build on what should be learned by debaters in their the first two years. Year One Benchmarks Debate Round Mechanics (1) Speeches, cross-examination, prep time Debater understands when it is their turn to speak and for how long; understands when to ask/answer cross-examination questions; understands prep time (how much available, use) (2) Role of the judge, function of the ballot Debater understands the conduct, limitations, and jurisdiction
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Philosophy Booklet — Uil Cx Debate State Tournament 2016
    JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2016 — 1A, 2A, 3A EXPLANATORY NOTES Numerical ranking questions — judges were asked to rank the following on a scale of 1-5: • Qty. Arg. (Quantity of Arguments) — 1 = Limited, 5 = Unlimited DO NOT LOSE THIS BOOKLET! • T (Topicality) — 1 = Rarely Vote On, 5 = Vote On Often • CP (Counterplans) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable Bring it with you to each day of • DA (Disadvantages) — 1 = Not Essential, 5 = Essential competition. • Cond. Arg. (Conditional Arguments) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable • Kritiks — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable Experience — A = policy debater in high school, B = coach policy debate in high school, C = coach policy debate in college, D = college NDT debate, E = college CEDA debate, J = college LD debate, K = college parliamentary debate IMPORTANT NOTE: Some judges’ philosophy statements may be too long to fit completely in the box, and there may be some new judges who do not appear in this booklet. New judges and expanded printouts for those with longer philosophy statements will be posted in the assembly room. Debaters may ask any judge for a brief explanation of his or her judging philosophy prior to the round. COMM. SKILLS VS. QTY. VS. QUALITY RES. OF ISSUES OF EVIDENCE JUDGE PARADIGM NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE ABRAHA, WEGAHTA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ADE Res. Issues Quality 5 4 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal tabula rasa is probably the best way to describe it, i default to an offense/defense paradigm unless a different framing is presented in It's UIL, that being said, I dont' mind speed as the debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Forum Curriculum
    Atlanta Urban Debate League Public Forum Curriculum Find us online at: youtube.com/atlantadebate facebook.com/atlantadebate instagram.com/atlantadebate twitter.com/atlantadebate Public Forum Curriculum Atlanta Urban Debate League Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2 What Is Public Forum? ...................................................................................................................................... 3 What’s New?: An Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 What Is Public Forum? ................................................................................................................................ 3 Who Should Debate In Public Forum? ........................................................................................................ 3 Which Is Better: Policy or Public Forum? .................................................................................................... 3 What’s Different?: Policy v. Public Forum ....................................................................................................... 4 Topic Release (Calendar) ........................................................................................................................... 5 Sample Resolution .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents 1. Introduction to 2019-2020 Core Files…………………………………….………………………..…..2 2. Debate Basics/Conceptual Primers……………………………………….………………………..…..3 3. Core Files Vocabulary………………………………………………………………………………...13 4. Argument Primers……………………………………………………………………………………14 a. Ukraine b. Taiwan c. Saudi Arabia d. Disadvantages e. Consult NATO Counterplan f. Feminist International Relations Kritik 5. How-Tos a. Highlighting and Annotating (ex. Ukarine aff)……………………………………………..……..17 b. Flowing Shorthand Codes………………………………………………………………..……....19 c. How to Create Mini-Debates…………………………………………………………..………...20 6. Graphic Organizers a. Evidence Pulling for Affs and Case Neg…………………………………………….……….…..21 b. Writing Rebuttals…………………………………………………………………..………….…34 c. Mapping Out Disadvantages…………………………………………………….…………….....38 d. Answering Topicality as 2AC…………………………………………………….……………....39 e. Generic Topicality Templates…………………………………………………….……………...40 7. Activities/Games a. CX Drills………………………………………………………………………………………...43 b. Sample Case CX Questions (Ukraine)……………………………………………………………46 c. Sample Disadvantage CX Questions…………...........................……………………………….......47 d. Evidence Comparison....................................................................................................................................48 e. Mini Debate Directions..................................................................................................................................49 f. Ukraine (Ukraine Crisis) Mini Debate..........................................................................................................50
    [Show full text]