#TOMB OF THE DAMNED GRIM DAWN MAP PRO#

if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round. T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument.

#TOMB OF THE DAMNED GRIM DAWN MAP PRO#

K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip. remember, judge instruction above all else.ĪFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense.

this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). thats why AFF teams can win on a 'try or die' claims or turns to T or Framework. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. reevaluate your strategy.įiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for that same bullshit. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad.

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.

Tomb of the damned grim dawn map