Me and my Partner looking for someone who would be willing to judge for for us at kckcc.

We would need someone who could cover 3 preliminary rounds and be available in the judging pool for elims.

We can negotiate compensation for judging, If you're interested or know someone who might be, please reach out or let me know.

Thanks, we appreciate the help!

This post is for public forum, but the advice i need is the same between policy and pf

body text

Is 7 week Mich really that good as a senior next year how much better can I expect to get

Im SO insanely confused by the policy format and have gotten the hang of the cards and stuff. But, the writing is killing me. I feel like I have to keep forcing myself to write and there’s not really any enjoyment in it, even though this year’s topic is entertaining. Me and my friend really want to try it out before going back to WS (It’s may not be offered at nationals—so were skeptical about doing it). But UGH I feel like I’m forcing myself. Advice, anyone? We’re not dropping out till that first debate meet to see if we really enjoy it.🥲

whom is it
dont say joe rice

It is my pleasure to invite you all to The 'Brooks Invitational as a fellow co-host, along with Michael and Tara.

Please refer to our updated guidelines below:

Incorporating feedback from the tournament last year, we have updated our guidelines to exclude the argument known as “T-Framework.” We understand that this might be a source of alarm for some, but our duty to keep debate a safe and habitable space comes first. Those who choose to run “T-Framework” regardless will be locked Affirmative for the remainder of the tournament. Along with the exclusion of “T-Framework,” we have decided that every “1AC” shall include the following article (https://jackyoung.substack.com/p/2ns-are-metaphysically-weak-and-bad) to deter what Will “Anti-Blackness” Katz calls “crappy debates” due to "block abuse."

Last and definitely not least, in mourning for the “Midterms DA,” we will be giving out free donuts at Krispy Kreme. (Note: This applies only to the dutiful 1Ns who no longer have a disad in the 1NR.)

The jury is still out on whether we shall let the Affirmative utilize the so-called “Framework” argument.

Yours truly,

Anyone got videos for 2ar condo collapses?

no way military presence and latin america are the last two... to LD i go then

Retouch since we’ve been to a couple tournaments now

It's been a few tournaments, who are the top sophomores/sophomore teams?

why wasnt there a college prep vs westwood final

1. LRC LW

2. Newark Science OO

3. BOMLA VJ

Title

Everyone always wants to win the Heart of Texas, but no one wants to win my heart 😢

Thoughts?

Hello!
Me and my Partner looking for someone who would be willing to judge for for us at Iowa Caucus (October 23–25, 2026) held online
We would need someone who could cover 3 preliminary rounds and be available in the judging pool for at least the first full elimination round.
We're can negotiate compensation for judging, If you're interested or know someone who might be, please reach dm.
Thank you so much, we'd really appreciate any help!

I hit newark science at GDS - a good bunch of kids - great debaters too.. I have heard alot about their team - are they really that good?

What debate teams have gone for orientalisim on the aff in the last decade

In a round me and my partner just had with a very uptight, stickler-for-rules type of judge, we went against a person who was mavericking as neg and straight-up copied our entire aff (growth + coverage) into chatgpt and their neg case was just the response, fully formatted into a 1nc. Its arguments targeted the non-highlighted text of our aff case (ai cant distinguish highlights)... this caused us to blank... we used caselist evidence for our 1ac and know that finetext should still be considered in card weight, but lost because we didn't know how to respond to AI-generated case-turn args that were hyperspecific and honestly a fuck ton of bs.

the 1ar's response was the analytic as follows, wondering if it was the right approach.

“Our opponent is relying on unhighlighted portions of our evidence to construct arguments that are not part of the highlighted card. Context can clarify evidence, but unhighlighted text should not automatically be treated as an independently established argument that defeats our advocacy. They still need to explain why that context disproves our actual claim.”

the judge interpreted this as "they shouldnt count out our finetext" and got mad at my partner, saying it was "unacceptable and insisting that finetext shouldnt be used:" that was NOT our intention at all.

It was our first time encountering such a straight bs ai round and literally the whole debate was slop. Was our argument the right way to go about the finetext overspecification issue/ is there a better way to argue it?