Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Prospect ST (Sophia Tian)"
→ACs
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) (→ACs) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
I'll probably write a full length article on how to "do" phil debate soon, but it's always good to know the philosophy well enough to explain to a layperson. Using examples, numbering your arguments/signposting, and seeming knowledgeable always gives you a speaks boost. For example, if your opponent says "Freedom is not uniform, meaning Kant can't account for it under his a priori binary" a good response could be "Freedom comes in many different forms but it can still be a priori," but the best response would be something like "Freedom comes in many different forms but it can still be a priori e.g., saying a triangle has 3 sides is an a priori truth, but there are many different types of triangles -- scalene, isosceles, and equilateral even though they share the same property." While the second response is longer, it's also more detailed and explains the concept a lot better than the first. Longer responses are also not uniformly bad -- they give your judge time to flow, which can be a breath of fresh air in blippy phil debates. | I'll probably write a full length article on how to "do" phil debate soon, but it's always good to know the philosophy well enough to explain to a layperson. Using examples, numbering your arguments/signposting, and seeming knowledgeable always gives you a speaks boost. For example, if your opponent says "Freedom is not uniform, meaning Kant can't account for it under his a priori binary" a good response could be "Freedom comes in many different forms but it can still be a priori," but the best response would be something like "Freedom comes in many different forms but it can still be a priori e.g., saying a triangle has 3 sides is an a priori truth, but there are many different types of triangles -- scalene, isosceles, and equilateral even though they share the same property." While the second response is longer, it's also more detailed and explains the concept a lot better than the first. Longer responses are also not uniformly bad -- they give your judge time to flow, which can be a breath of fresh air in blippy phil debates. | ||
=== 2022 -- 2023 === | === 2022 -- 2023 === | ||
==== January/February ==== | ==== January/February ==== | ||
===== ACs ===== | ===== ACs ===== | ||
I mostly read Kant with an ASEAN advantage, but in more tricky rounds I'd just fill the aff with preempts (theory or AT: K) instead of the util advantage. I kept the Kant framework and advantage relatively short (< 3:00) since most people don't LBL the justifications anyway, so it wasted time in the aff that I could use to add other more strategic preempts. | I mostly read Kant with an ASEAN advantage, but in more tricky rounds I'd just fill the aff with preempts (theory or AT: K) instead of the util advantage. I kept the Kant framework and advantage relatively short (< 3:00) since most people don't LBL the justifications anyway, so it wasted time in the aff that I could use to add other more strategic preempts. | ||
JF23 -- Kant AC | |||
===== NCs ===== | ===== NCs ===== | ||
==== November/December ==== | ==== November/December ==== | ||
===== ACs ===== | ===== ACs ===== | ||
===== NCs ===== | ===== NCs ===== | ||
==== September/October ==== | ==== September/October ==== | ||
===== ACs ===== | ===== ACs ===== | ||
===== NCs ===== | ===== NCs ===== | ||
=== 2022 -- 2023 === | === 2022 -- 2023 === | ||
==== January/February ==== | ==== January/February ==== | ||
===== ACs ===== | ===== ACs ===== | ||
===== NCs ===== | ===== NCs ===== | ||
==== November/December ==== | ==== November/December ==== | ||
===== ACs ===== | ===== ACs ===== | ||
===== NCs ===== | ===== NCs ===== | ||
==== September/October ==== | ==== September/October ==== | ||
===== ACs ===== | ===== ACs ===== | ||
===== NCs ===== | ===== NCs ===== | ||