Malgor Warming up for the Podcast

Topics discussed in this podcast include

-how we are in fact real Americans who fight for the rights of everyone

-How debating the K like a DA is brilliant… only the exact opposite

-Why is everyone else not as smart as us?

- Your big words (like “link”) would work in front of me, except i’m way smarter than you

-When is Framework a necessary argument? Answer- When we tell you it is!

Roy was also along for this podcast- we told him to speak up anytime he had something insightful to add.

You can mainline this mother right into your veins here.

The episode—officially the tenth, since our previous attempt was never released to the public—features a wide-ranging discussion of topics including:

• The Spirit of Disclosure Award: Should analytical arguments be disclosed? What level of disclosure should be expected? What makes for an effective wiki page? Woodward PP: worst wiki page in the country?
• Flowing: A lost art?
• Should The 3NR create other awards recognizing effective research, innovative strategies, etc.?
• Speaker Points: Are they too high? Were the debaters “back in the day” better than those of today? Is Roy a hopeless curmudgeon or does he have a point? Should we transition to a 100-point or 30/.1 scale?
• Why do 2N/1A’s receive higher points than 1N/2A’s? Should they?
• Low Point Wins: Should they be banned? Scott says yes. Is he right, or are there situations where low point wins make sense?
• Double Losses: Should they be allowed? Scott says yes—we discuss this idea and some alternatives.
• Pairing Criteria: Is the current system (high-low within brackets using high-low adjusted points) effective? Should opponent wins be used to pair debates? Should high-high rounds be more common? Should side constraints be ignored for undefeated teams when pairing the last prelim?
• The Politics Disad: sweet or not so sweet? Should the aff be losing debates to the politics disad? Should negs be relying on it to construct their post-season strategies?
• “The DA Turns The Case”: the last refuge of scoundrels? What can the aff do to protect themselves from “the low risk DA turns the case, I voted neg” decisions?
• Conditionality Gone Wild: is each plank of a multi-plank counterplan conditional? Is it okay to kick independent planks? Whose burden is it to establish the meaning of “conditionality” (or, more generally, the disposition of the counterplan)?
• “A2:” or “AT:” (or “They Say:”) as a label for blocks: which one is best? (Yes, we actually got into an argument about this.)

And several other things that listeners probably don’t care about but might still find entertaining, like openness in Public Forum and the disturbing content of most Dramatic Interpretation pieces.

As always, you can download this episode directly or access it through iTunes.

• A Judging Hypothetical (from Rajesh Jegadeesh)
• Do Dropped Advantages Need To Be Explicitly Extended in the 2AC/1AR?
• Rounds We Judged Together At The Glenbrooks
• Non-Sensical Plan Writing and Plan-Inclusive Counterplans
• Disclosure Norms Regarding New Plan Texts
• Research Techniques (in regard to the Crowd-Sourcing Threads)
• Specific vs. General Critique Responses
• Impact Turns Alongside Critiques As A Negative Strategy
• Switch-Side Debate and the Hicks and Greene Evidence

As always, you can download this episode directly or access it (soon) through iTunes.

As always, you can download this episode directly or access it (soon) through iTunes. We have also submitted our feed to the Zune Marketplace—hopefully it will show up there soon, too.

• Small School Success (link)
• Poverty/Means Testing PIC
• Word PICs
• Debating Extra-Topicality/Theory
• Collaborative Research Project/Open Source

If you’d like to suggest a topic for our next episode, please do so in the comments.

This week’s podcast features a discussion of several issues including the 100-point scale, critiques of disadvantages (and how to answer them), politics theory arguments, the use of technology in debate (including the Synergy software), and a few other topics. We are planning on discussing negative strategies against critique affirmatives next week but we would love to hear from our listeners: if there’s something you’d like us to discuss, please let us know!

Any debate questions about a round you were in or saw?

Shoot me an e-mail or post a comment  and we’ll try to get it into the next 3nr podcast.

We are considering discussing these issues in the upcoming podcast

- Ks of the Da and answering them

- Use of internet in debate rounds

-being neg vs K affs

If you have specific questions or comments about this topics post em

-this post about consult (http://www.georgiadebate.org/2009/10/goodbye-consult-cp)

-how to approach college debate when making application decisions

-sitting vs standing while speaking

-flowing on paper vs laptop

-kritik permutations for the aff and neg

-Debate Synergy

You can download the file directly or subscribe via iTunes.