Three Ways to Improve Your Politics DAs

A politics disadvantage argues that adopting the Affirmative advocacy will cause political fallout that produces negative impacts. For example, the Negative might argue that if the President initiates a humanitarian intervention in Syria, he won’t be able to push through defense budget cuts necessary to address national debt and deficit, and this will hurt the economy. These can be powerful arguments when deployed properly; here are a few tips to make sure you get bang for your buck with Politics DAs.

Briefly

Debate and the Virtue of Intellectual Integrity by Adam Torson

Intellectual integrity denotes a commitment to the honest pursuit of truth through openness to evidence, ideas, and the criticisms of others. It prohibits the subordination of truth to expediency or personal gain, and requires us to be on guard against self-deception and short-sightedness. It requires a balance between the courage of honest conviction and the humility to recognize that our conclusions must always be uncertain and provisional.

Briefly

Debate Participation Survey

Catherine Tarsney is conducting research into debate participation and the return students and coaches get from the activity. She has offered to make this research available to the debate community. Please take a moment to participate; collecting this kind of data is very important to helping to improve our programs and sell debate to the […]

Briefly

Fear of Clash by Jake Nebel

I am a pluralist about the value of LD debate. That is, I believe there are multiple features of LD that make it good for its participants, including the development of research skills, communication skills, and critical thinking skills. (The debate about such values and their relative weight is the crucial question in the impacts […]

Briefly

Debaters Against Sexism: Taking a Stand

We received an email from the people organizing Debaters Against Sexism: Attached is an article that we would like published as soon as possible; I hope it’ll be pretty self-explanatory when you read this. I, along with Catherine Tarsney, Diana Li, Karlyn Gorski, Bekah Boyer, Mike Bietz, and many other debaters have been working on […]

Briefly

Frameworks Wide and Narrow (Part III) by Jake Nebel

People have asked me why I think a wide framework is a good strategy. I understand their confusion, since preclusive standards have such obvious strategic merits that may never seem worth sacrificing. I don’t think a wide framework is always strategic, but its strategic virtues include the following: 1. You can avoid many objections to […]

Briefly

Frameworks, Wide and Narrow (Part II) by Jake Nebel

I consider utilitarianism to be a narrow standard, because even though lots of different things have impacts to wellbeing, the standard assumes that consequences (in terms of wellbeing) are all that matters. Deontological standards that exclude all consequences are also narrow standards. The default framework, I think, should be a wide framework according to which […]

Briefly

Frameworks, Wide and Narrow (Part I) by Jake Nebel

Frameworks, Wide and Narrow (Part I) A wide framework accepts the importance of more than one kind of ethical consideration. This kind of framework used to be a widespread practice in national circuit LD, and it may even have been an unstated default assumption of many judges. But, over the years, wide frameworks have been mostly replaced […]

Briefly