Baxter MDAW 2012. Overviews: What they are For Meta-level debate Stuff with no place on the flow Increase judge comprehension Overviews: What they aren’t.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

POLITICS KENDALL KAUT. WHY WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE DA Links to nearly everything Links to nearly everything Key reason most affirmatives do not occur.

Advertisements

How to Give an Effective 2ar. 1. Think About the Big Picture  Remember: focus on offense – defend your house  Isolate 1 or 2 Impacts  Decide on impacts.

(Counter) Plans Because they didn’t limit the topic.

Matt Gomez Debating the Disadvantage (DA). 4 Part One: What is a Disadvantage?

By Mark Veeder-SCFI How to properly construct an AC and NC -Getting the most out of cross-ex -How to structure a rebuttal.

 The plan says “United States”. The CP replaces that with the word “global” and the net benefit is a critique of ethno-centrism.  2AC says “perm: do.

Mike Shackelford. Factors that make a good counterplan Does it solve the aff better? Is it competitive Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff.

Advanced cp competition exercises

Debating the Politics DA By Jason Russell University of Oklahoma.

Answering Counterplans  Acronym is PLOTS  Permutation  Links to their disads  Other disads to the Counterplan  Theory Objections  Doesn’t Solve the.

Critiques/Kritiks Baxter MDAW 2013 “Strange things are afoot at the circle k…” --Ted Theodore Logan.

Capitalism Kritik. -AN IDEOLOGY -A MINDSET -“AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM BASED ON THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND EXCHANGE,

Introduction to Kritiks Ryan Galloway Samford University.

PICs….. In spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!.  Cp text  Net benefit  Must be competitive ◦ Uniquely beneficial ◦ Mutually exclusive.

Put the K in debate.  Challenges the assumptions of the aff  Similar to a cp in it’s function and purpose  Offers an alternative that corrects the.

Theory CODI 2014 Lecture. Rules of Debate Debate has surprisingly few rules Time limits and speaking order There must be a winner and loser No outside.

The 1ar: Debate’s Paramedic Get the patient to the hospital…alive.

UNDERSTANDING THE KRITIK by Lurp Lank and Alex Kosmachavelli.

Matt Gomez Ph.D in Theoretical Objections to Negative and Affirmative argumentation (Bingham Campus) SCFI 2011 THEORY.

Politics. How to pick your disad 1. Link Debate – certain affs just go a certain way. Gotta win that. In my mind, need to win its unpopular or get another.

 Debating the Case Mikaela Malsin, Univ. of Georgia DUDA 2012

Counterplans CODI 2014 Lecture 2. What is a counterplan? A plan offered by the negative to solve some or all of the affirmative’s advantages The negative.

Alejandres Gannon UC Berkeley.  The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the.

How to Debate Disadvantages. Selecting disadvantages to run  Be strategic in selecting them—a few things to remember—  Don’t run multiple disadvantages.

Intro to Critiques. Fiat The assumption in the debate game that we pretend the plan gets passed by the USFG. Then, we can debate out the Costs (DA’s)

Critiques: Or, Why Everything You Ever Learned Is Wrong (And How to Do Better)

“Society is fundamentally dead,” says Derrida. Thus, subconstructive dialectic theory holds that the establishment is capable of social comment, given.

Counterplans The Negative’s Best Friend The Negative’s Best Friend.

INTRO TO COUNTERPLANS!. WHAT IS A CP? A net beneficial alternative proposal to the Plan Competitive with the Plan Strategic if… The Aff is huge The SQ.

Theory Debating Baxter MDAW  It Really is  There are 4 Components of a Theory Argument  Interp  Violation  Standards  Voting Issue  You.

Advanced Debate Friday, August 21,  Speaking Drills  Counterplans  Work on cases  Exam 1: Next Friday Preview.

Debating the Case GDI Glossary Aff case Advantage Offense Defense Card Analytic.

Going Negative The Surveillance Topic. Outline for the topic I. Categories of neg ground -Go over the specific arguments we have II. Dealing.

Debating the case.

Affirmative Strategy Austin Layton. Overview At least, take two things from this lecture Main Advantage of Being Aff: Familiarity – Preparation Matters.

Sydney Apple Boston College 2015 Georgia Debate Institutes

Critiques Brian Rubaie, Debate Central. What is a critique?  Disadvantages question desirability of action  Counterplans question methods of action.

Critical Debate Don’t Fear the Reaper. What Is A Critique? Way of understanding information Aff and Neg Tool.

Disadvantages “Advanced” theory.

Intro to Counterplans Casey Parsons. Introduction to Counterplans Thus far in debate, we have assumed that the neg defends the status quo In the vast.

SCFI 2011 SJK. Understand how to structure and write basic LD constructives Understand the basic components of contention-level argumentation Begin to.

CHEATINGZ!! Baxter and Friends. LIE…ABOUT YOUR EVIDENCE.

CHEATINGZ!! Baxter and Friends. LIE…ABOUT YOUR EVIDENCE.

Parts of a DA in 1NC2ac answers to a DA Uniqueness1. Non-unique Link2. No link Internal Link3. No internal link Impact4.

GDI 2015 THE NEGATIVE.  The counter to the Affirmative  Negates the course of action proposed  So much variety! Many ways to negate  What makes someone.

Counterplans. Counterplan Burdens Competitiveness To be competitive, CP must be: – Mutually exclusive – Net beneficial Topicality – Traditional theory.

 If you can convince the judge that passing your affirmative plan is a good idea, you will win the debate. Essentially, you need to prove that the affirmative.

POLICY DEBATE. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? A structured format for fairly arguing a topic of policy TEAM DEBATE: two teams of two students each 8 speeches.

 Philosophical or performative advocacy  Rejects Traditional policy focus  Micro vs Macro resistance to oppression.

Hays Watson Head Debate Coach UGA.  It is the counterpoint to the Affirmative – instead of Affirming a particular course of action (i.e. the resolution),

Topicality “That sounds good. That’s a good skill to have.” –Julia Marshall “Naw. Advantages don’t matter when it comes to Topicality.” –Humza Tahir.

Basic Strategies Dallas Urban Debate League December, 2007.

Affirmative Casing Strategies. Characteristics of Great ACs 1.Argument Quality 2.Persuasive Rhetoric 3.Strategic vision.

Matt Gomez.  What will occur in the status quo  Factors for good uniqueness  Post-dating – things change  Brink – why is the squo good but not guaranteed.

BASICS OF BEING AFFIRMATIVE

KRITIKS Melissa Witt.

Policy Debate Speaker Duties

WELCOME TO DEBATE! Negative Basics.

Critical Approaches to the Topic

Basics of Debate Damien Debate.

How to be negative Gabi Yamout.

UNDERSTANDING THE KRITIK

Answering the CP Casey Parsons.

Debate: The Basics.

Speaker Responsibilities

The Affirmative Adapted from:.

Wining the DA Casey Parsons.

Debate What is Debate?.

The Politics DA Casey Parsons.

Writing Work Write a thesis statement that answers the following prompt This assignment will be due at the end of the period Argue which president during.

Presentation transcript:

Baxter MDAW 2012

Overviews: What they are For Meta-level debate Stuff with no place on the flow Increase judge comprehension Overviews: What they aren’t for Basic explanation of an argument we all know Reading lots of cards Micro level arguments

Good link analysis Specific examples Lines from the evidence Answering the permutation Perm Still Links Not net beneficial Prolly intrinsic

Impact Arguments Multiple levels K always turns the case Alt solvency Root cause arguments “Politicization” Floating PICs

Specific Link Arguments Specific Alt Solvency 2NC Blocks

Kritik arguments are no different than other arguments Don’t fear performance

POSTAL DEFEND YOUR AFF

capitalism Marxism Socialism Anarchy Commodification/commodity Fetish Empire (Hardt/Negri) Multitude Proletariat Bourgeois Objectivism (Rand) Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse)

Freud Lacan Zizek Metaphoric condensation Overidentification Letter of the law Symptom Lack Fidelity to the Event (Badiou) Jouissance Desire Object A

Foucault Derrida Heidegger Nietzche