Hey guys! I'm Chris and I debated for Millburn High School from 2013 to 2017. I always enjoyed downloading cases from this page and perusing them to get an understanding of how debaters wrote cases. I shared prep with a few people, so what I have here isn't all that I read. There's also a lot of other less interesting prep that my teammates and I usually cut off the wiki, and theory shells I can't put up here. Some files might have subsections from previous topics that I haven't deleted yet, just a warning. Finally, feel free to use analytics/cards here to your heart's content. Enjoy!
Aff Agonism AC I usually read this against people who read a lot of tricks or if I needed to get into a K debate. There are a ton of tricks that I could extend in the 1AR depending on my opponent/judge. Butler AC This had a really similar function as the Agonism AC, but was simpler. I almost exclusively read a similar version of this aff on Sept/Oct, so it was really familiar for me when I needed to read it. Also, I just had to switch out four new cards for this aff to work. Burden ACWesley Hu wrote this entire aff, but it was by far my favorite AC of the topic. I had read a really similar burden aff for Jan/Feb my junior year and Nov/Dec this year, so it was easy to pull up if I needed it. Usually read these affs against West Coast people who didn't know how to deal with trix :D Constitution AC I only read this once, but I really wish I had read it more. It's a really tricky framework aff with a lot of things that could take out theory. There were also a lot of layers of framework preclusion I could go for. Kant AC Read this a ton, usually if I had a judge who liked framework or I had to have a clean substance debate. Also, this aff was really unabusive, so I could easily read 1AR theory if the NC invested too much on substance.
Neg Action Theory NC Not gonna lie, this NC is literally just truth testing with 4 a prioris. I read this NC (obviously with different contention arguments) throughout the year. I was 11-1 with this NC, so no matter how stupid this strategy might seem, I definitely encourage you to try reading it! Most people just don't know how to intuitively answer stupid arguments in the 1AR. I-Law NC Read this almost every neg round at Lex. It was an incredible time tradeoff imo, since there were a ton of presumption and skep triggers in the framework and people had terrible turns. Kant NC Also read this a ton, usually in front of framework judges or if the AC framework was easy to answer. I usually extemped 2 a prioris when I read this just to make sure I could win substance. Jan/Feb Theory I had pretty extensive topical theory files for Sept/Oct and Nov/Dec, but since I realized that I never actually read most of the shells I wrote, this file is pretty short. I did read the PICs bad shell a lot - everyone's answers were pretty atrocious.
Finally, I think one important lesson I learned from debate is that drills honestly make a huge difference - I was always a fan of theory/framework/tricks because they were great time investments. I could analytically write out a shell or a trick that I could read many times over, and drilling would always help me when I hadn't done enough topical prep. In my personal experience, I wanted a lot of time to complete schoolwork and participate in my other extracurricular activities, so my debating style really fit with my priorities. Also, I had actual fun reading tricky affs and extemping shells. I just never really enjoyed having a substance debate. If you have any questions, please email me at [email protected].
Aff
Agonism AC I usually read this against people who read a lot of tricks or if I needed to get into a K debate. There are a ton of tricks that I could extend in the 1AR depending on my opponent/judge.
Butler AC This had a really similar function as the Agonism AC, but was simpler. I almost exclusively read a similar version of this aff on Sept/Oct, so it was really familiar for me when I needed to read it. Also, I just had to switch out four new cards for this aff to work.
Burden AC Wesley Hu wrote this entire aff, but it was by far my favorite AC of the topic. I had read a really similar burden aff for Jan/Feb my junior year and Nov/Dec this year, so it was easy to pull up if I needed it. Usually read these affs against West Coast people who didn't know how to deal with trix :D
Constitution AC I only read this once, but I really wish I had read it more. It's a really tricky framework aff with a lot of things that could take out theory. There were also a lot of layers of framework preclusion I could go for.
Kant AC Read this a ton, usually if I had a judge who liked framework or I had to have a clean substance debate. Also, this aff was really unabusive, so I could easily read 1AR theory if the NC invested too much on substance.
Neg
Action Theory NC Not gonna lie, this NC is literally just truth testing with 4 a prioris. I read this NC (obviously with different contention arguments) throughout the year. I was 11-1 with this NC, so no matter how stupid this strategy might seem, I definitely encourage you to try reading it! Most people just don't know how to intuitively answer stupid arguments in the 1AR.
I-Law NC Read this almost every neg round at Lex. It was an incredible time tradeoff imo, since there were a ton of presumption and skep triggers in the framework and people had terrible turns.
Kant NC Also read this a ton, usually in front of framework judges or if the AC framework was easy to answer. I usually extemped 2 a prioris when I read this just to make sure I could win substance.
Jan/Feb Theory I had pretty extensive topical theory files for Sept/Oct and Nov/Dec, but since I realized that I never actually read most of the shells I wrote, this file is pretty short. I did read the PICs bad shell a lot - everyone's answers were pretty atrocious.
Finally, I think one important lesson I learned from debate is that drills honestly make a huge difference - I was always a fan of theory/framework/tricks because they were great time investments. I could analytically write out a shell or a trick that I could read many times over, and drilling would always help me when I hadn't done enough topical prep. In my personal experience, I wanted a lot of time to complete schoolwork and participate in my other extracurricular activities, so my debating style really fit with my priorities. Also, I had actual fun reading tricky affs and extemping shells. I just never really enjoyed having a substance debate. If you have any questions, please email me at [email protected].
Free website hit counter