Comments for The 3NR

Comment on So You Want To Qualify For The NDT? An Analysis of the High School Experience of the 2010 NDT Field by Chris Crowe

Chris Crowe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:48:26 +0000

It would take a ton of research, but I wonder which primarily regional/local high school has qualified the most debaters to the NDT in a single year.

My alma mater (Cheyenne East High School, Wyoming) had 6 representatives in both 2005 & 2006. Can anyone out there top that? My guess would be a Kansas school.

Comment on So You Want To Qualify For The NDT? An Analysis of the High School Experience of the 2010 NDT Field by Bill Batterman

Bill Batterman — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:00:34 +0000

How I Did This: I created a spreadsheet with each of the debaters currently entered for the NDT (from Debate Results). I filled in their high schools, states, and high school graduation years based on a variety of sources—NFLOnline.org, Cross-X.com, college team websites, and Google searches. There were seven debaters for which I was unable to locate this information. For the high school experience column, I did this subjectively by consulting with NFLOnline.org records, Cross-X.com searches, and my own archive of results packets. The A/B/C/D assignments might not be 100% correct, but I think they’re pretty close. I started doing this after getting some feedback from the first round post.

The list of high schools that this year’s first round bid recipients attended is in the aforementioned post.

I’m planning to do an analysis of the high school careers/experiences of the debaters that clear at the NDT this year… I think that’s the best gauge of “top tier” (instead of trying to come up with an arbitrary “first round plus X” ranking before the tournament; I don’t have enough familiarity with the college circuit to do something like that justice). I also like Trevor’s idea of breaking this down by region/district; I’ll probably do that at some point, too.

Comment on So You Want To Qualify For The NDT? An Analysis of the High School Experience of the 2010 NDT Field by matthew cook

matthew cook — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:50:49 +0000

Great post. What’s the source of this information?

M. Cook
Emporia State Debate

Comment on So You Want To Qualify For The NDT? An Analysis of the High School Experience of the 2010 NDT Field by WHG

WHG — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:44:44 +0000

I wonder how this data was collected?

Comment on So You Want To Qualify For The NDT? An Analysis of the High School Experience of the 2010 NDT Field by JZ

JZ — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:08:42 +0000

I agree with Trevor. This post is really insightful. I’m also wondering… how does the statistics change when you look at first round qualifiers or even limit it to a more exclusive ranking?

Comment on So You Want To Qualify For The NDT? An Analysis of the High School Experience of the 2010 NDT Field by Trevor Aufderheide

Trevor Aufderheide — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:13:44 +0000

Great post, Bill.

I was wondering if the above trends change at all when applied to specific demographics. I know you did some of this in your earlier post about the First Round Bid Qualifiers, but are there any statistics on how national circuit experience helps when you look at the first round qualifiers, second round qualifiers, different NDT districts, etc.? I’d be interested to see how different echelons of NDT qualifiers or different areas trend in the context of the four areas you isolated.

Comment on Defending The Affirmative: Tips For Answering Multi-Plank Counterplans by John Smith

John Smith — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:36:04 +0000

It seems like the issue is more with the topic than with the concept of the multi-plank CP. For example, on last year’s topic, there were a bunch of disads based off of increasing alternative energy. If an aff had a heg advantage and an econ advantage, you could pretty easily CP out of those two advantages and read energy Disads and internal link defense on the advantages based on energy. This topic sucks-yes-politics is the only disad really, so ya, the CP will almost always link to the NB.
Two other things-
1) if a team reads a popular card to answer CP links to politics, that means that perm do both shields the link to politics is what is generally said. I kind of disagree with that-magnitude of the link really matters in this instance. IF the aff is immigration and you read a card saying Highway funding is popular, the CP will be spun as immigration policy, the people who hate immigration are very rarely going to be like “wow the amazing Highway funding will make me forget my constitutents will kill me for easing immigration restrictions”. ARguably the perm would be worse than the plan alone b/c Obama is percieved as trying to hide an unpopular bil behind a popular one.
2) Is your only difference between reading 5 CPs individually conditionally and 1 CP where each of hte 5 planks can be kicked individually conditionally that “perceptioanlly judges will disagree theortetically more” with the former than the latter? That seems very hard to quantify in-round, and I think the arg “we would have just read each CP individually” is fairly compelling.

Comment on Defending The Affirmative: Tips For Answering Multi-Plank Counterplans by Roy Levkovitz

Roy Levkovitz — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:56:33 +0000

This post is good with regards to the question of beating the politics disad as said net benefit to the cp. But I feel like the more strategic negative team uses this multi-plank cp as a way to solve for adv 1, 2, and 4 and impact turn advantage 3. While the 1nc might try to make args about why politics is a net benefit the real net benefit comes from the impact turns.

In this instance the aff needs to make sure to do 2 things
1.) make sure you have a good defense of the adv
2.) obviously advance the theory args

Also if in the instance the neg makes the arg in the 1nc that “yeah its a net benefit too” but you can tell the impact turns is their “A level offense” I would try to make the negative’s life difficult by straight turning politics in the 2ac (assuming I was confident I could win either impact turns to the da or the U/LT)

Comment on Defending The Affirmative: Tips For Answering Multi-Plank Counterplans by Kevin Hirn

Kevin Hirn — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:20:10 +0000

Really good post Bill – that idea of a comprehensive politics links to adv cp file is a really good idea that I probably wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Comment on Defending The Affirmative: Tips For Answering Multi-Plank Counterplans by Jason Wright

Jason Wright — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:44:32 +0000

I came here to say what whit said – this debate happened about 50000 times on the Africa topic, particularly with soft power CPs like “ratify the ICC/Kyoto”. The affirmative let the neg win a politics net-benefit simply because the only link evidence read was the 1nc card talking about foreign aid – that is absurd and letting the neg get away with that should be a crime punishable by death.