r/Debate

Hello! A friend and I recently started a parli debate team at our school. We've finished up our main novice curriculum and we're now working on our open/var curriculum.

When debaters are past the basics of parli and case-building structure, and have a base-level understanding of more advanced case strategies (like counterplans, PICs, impact turns, etc.), we're introducing technical arguments such as Ks and theory so they can be ready to respond in such rounds, and eventually run these types of arguments themselves if they find it valuable. The novice debaters are familiar with DAs, framing/weighing, basic phil, and progressive debate norms already.

However, I'm aware that there are many advanced methods of argumentation that are not just critical theory/technical arguments. For example, various philosophical frameworks, advanced weighing/meta-weighing, more advanced counterplan strategy, and strategic collapse/round vision.

Can anyone suggest other types of advanced argumentation or strategic concepts that would be useful to introduce in an open/var curriculum? I'm especially interested in things that help students become more adaptable and well-rounded debaters rather than just “more technical.”

Would also appreciate suggestions on the order these topics should be taught in or drills/exercises that worked well for your teams.

The proposed NFA-LD topic areas with sample resolutions from the topic papers are as follows:

• Agriculture
  • The United States federal government should substantially increase its restrictions on domestic agricultural policy in the areas of land use conversion, crop production, livestock, or poultry.
  • The United States federal government should substantially increase its restrictions on domestic agricultural policy in one or more of the following areas: crop production, livestock, or poultry.
  • The United States federal government should substantially increase its restrictions on its domestic agricultural policy in the area of land management and/or land use conversion.
  • The United States federal government should substantially increase its restrictions on domestic agricultural policy in the area of land management.
  • The United States federal government should substantially increase its restrictions on domestic agricultural policy in one or more of the following areas: aquaculture, crop production, and biotechnology.
• Corporate Law
  • The United States federal government should substantially [increase the constraints] of its [corporate law] by at least expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase prohibitions on private sector mergers and acquisitions by at least expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase prohibitions on anticompetitive business practices by the private sector by at least expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.
• Education
  • The United States Federal Government should substantially increase investment in secondary education in one of the following areas: Trade/vocation programs,STEM programs, or Arts education.
  • The United States Federal Government should implement substantial new regulations on Primary Education.
  • The United States Federal Government should adopt a national set of guidelines for post secondary education.
  • The United States Federal Government should substantially increase investment in secondary education in one of the following areas: Arts education, Ethnic. studies, or Gender Studies
  • The United States Federal Government should reform its education policy to establish a national curriculum for primary education
• Facility Reform
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform U.S. correctional facilities in one or more of the following areas: infrastructure, labor, and/or confinement.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially improve conditions of confinement in penal institutions.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform penal institutions in the areas of labor and/or infrastructure in the United States.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should enact a substantial penitentiary reform in one or more of the following areas: labor, material conditions, and/or healthcare.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform penal institutions in the areas of lab or and/or infrastructure.
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase prison reforms.
• Nationalization
  • The United States federal government should nationalize a secondary economics sector in the United States.
  • The United States federal government should nationalize an industry in the secondary economic sector in the United States.
  • The United States federal government should nationalize an industry in one of the following secondary economic sectors: national defense, healthcare, and/or transportation.
  • The United States federal government should nationalize an industry in one of the following secondary economic sectors: artificial intelligence, manufacturing, and/or construction.
  • The United States federal government should nationalize a primary economic sector in the United States.
• Redressing Anti-Blackness
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially redress its anti-Blackness in the United States of America.
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially redress anti-Blackness in the United States of America.
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially redress anti-Blackness in the United States of America by establishing one or more reparations programs.
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should materially redress its anti-Blackness in the United States of America.
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should materially redress anti-Blackness in the United States of America.
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should legislatively redress its anti-Blackness.
  • Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially redress anti-Blackness in the United States of America in one or more of the following areas:education; voting rights; housing; income inequality; and/or prison reform.

Which one of these do you prefer? Which one do you think will win?

My personal ranking is:

1. Agriculture
2. Facility Reform
3. Redressing Anti-blackness
4. Education
5. Nationalization
6. Corporate Law

I'm a rising sophomore who has done a little less than a year of DEX, but I really want to get to Nats next year and just be successful in extemp, I plan on practicing this summer but I'm unsure on what to begin with.

I currently struggle with remembering my full reasoning and explanation I had for my points during prep, I might have a really good point during prep, but in round I suddenly forget crucial parts of that point.

That's just one thing I tend to struggle with, but I would love any general extemp advice on how to get better and become more well-spoken among other things. Thank you:)

Human beings often treat negative emotions as if they are sacred truths. Sadness is treated as proof that something meaningful was lost. Anger is treated as evidence of injustice. Fear is treated as wisdom warning us of danger. Yet when examined from a broader philosophical perspective, negative emotions appear far less rational than society assumes. If all humans are born with the certainty of death, then every decision made between birth and death exists within a temporary and ultimately finite system. In a finite system where all outcomes eventually collapse into the same endpoint, assigning overwhelming emotional weight to one temporary outcome over another becomes difficult to justify rationally. Humanity privileges certain choices, relationships, failures, and successes not because those things possess objective cosmic importance, but because humans evolved to form attachments and preserve social continuity. Negative emotions therefore reveal less about objective reality and more about humanity’s tendency to irrationally cling to preferred narratives, identities, and expectations.

At the center of this argument is the idea that human existence is finite and therefore fundamentally bounded. Every person who has ever lived eventually reaches the same unavoidable conclusion: death. Wealth disappears, memories fade, civilizations collapse, and even the greatest accomplishments become insignificant against geological and cosmic timescales. When viewed from this perspective, many emotional reactions seem disproportionate. A person may experience crippling anxiety over social embarrassment, devastating grief over lost status, or consuming anger over a disagreement, yet none of these events alter the final condition of mortality. Humans often behave as though temporary events possess eternal significance when, objectively, they do not. The emotional intensity attached to these experiences therefore stems not from rational evaluation, but from subjective attachment.

This attachment is reinforced by society. Human civilization depends on stability, continuity, and cooperation, so cultures teach individuals to emotionally invest in specific paths. People are told that success matters more than failure, that achievement is superior to obscurity, and that certain identities or goals define personal worth. Once individuals internalize these beliefs, negative emotions emerge whenever reality threatens the narrative they have accepted. Fear arises when a person believes they may lose something society taught them to value. Shame appears when someone fails to meet social expectations. Jealousy emerges when another person achieves what one desires. These emotions are not objective truths; they are reactions created by attachment to socially constructed hierarchies and expectations.

Even grief, often viewed as the most natural negative emotion, demonstrates this irrational attachment. Humans know from the beginning that death is inevitable, yet they still react to it with shock, despair, and resistance. Rationally, an inevitable event should not produce outrage or emotional collapse because inevitability removes surprise. However, humans emotionally reject mortality despite intellectually understanding it. This contradiction reveals that emotion frequently overrides reason. People do not grieve simply because death occurs; they grieve because they became attached to the expectation of continued existence and cannot emotionally accept the breaking of that expectation. The suffering originates not from reality itself, but from resistance to reality.

Another reason negative emotions can be viewed as irrational is that humans experience life through an extremely narrow perspective. Individuals see the world primarily through personal experience, immediate desires, and emotional impulses. Because humans are biologically wired for self-preservation, they exaggerate the importance of events affecting themselves. A minor insult may feel enormous because the ego interprets it as a threat. A temporary failure may seem catastrophic because the mind mistakes present discomfort for permanent meaning. Yet from a broader perspective, these events are insignificant fragments within billions of years of existence. Humans emotionally magnify temporary experiences because they struggle to detach from the perspective of the self.

This tendency explains why people often continue harmful emotional patterns long after recognizing their irrationality. Someone may know logically that rejection is survivable, yet still fear it intensely. A person may understand intellectually that perfection is impossible, yet still feel shame for imperfection. The brain’s emotional systems evolved for survival in primitive environments, not for objective philosophical reasoning. Negative emotions helped early humans avoid danger, maintain social belonging, and protect resources. However, evolutionary usefulness does not equal rational truth. Fear may increase survival odds, but that does not mean the fear accurately reflects reality’s true significance. Much of human emotional suffering is therefore a leftover biological mechanism rather than a logically justified response.

Critics of this argument may claim that negative emotions are rational because they serve practical purposes. Fear can prevent recklessness, guilt can encourage moral behavior, and sadness can strengthen social bonds. While this is partially true, usefulness alone does not establish rationality. A hallucination could theoretically help someone survive in a specific circumstance, but that would not make the hallucination objectively true. Likewise, emotions may function as adaptive tools while still distorting reality. Fear often exaggerates danger beyond reason. Anger simplifies complex situations into enemies and victims. Depression convinces individuals that temporary pain is permanent. These emotions may have evolutionary functions, but they frequently operate through cognitive distortion rather than objective logic.

Furthermore, humans selectively privilege certain emotions while condemning others, revealing the inconsistency of emotional reasoning. Society praises ambition but criticizes apathy, even though both ultimately lead to the same mortal endpoint. People admire passion yet condemn emotional detachment, despite detachment often producing greater clarity and stability. This inconsistency exists because societies are designed to perpetuate themselves. Emotional investment keeps people productive, cooperative, and obedient to social structures. If humans fully embraced the insignificance of temporary outcomes, many social systems built on competition, status, and fear would lose power. Negative emotions therefore become socially reinforced not because they are rational, but because they maintain societal momentum.

Viewing life through a broader intellectual lens changes the meaning of emotion entirely. Instead of interpreting negative feelings as absolute truths, they can be understood as temporary biological reactions occurring within a finite existence. This perspective does not require emotional numbness or cruelty. Rather, it encourages detachment from exaggerated significance. If every human shares the same final fate, then many anxieties lose their authority. Failure becomes less devastating because it is temporary. Embarrassment becomes less important because social judgment is fleeting. Even loss, while painful, becomes part of an inevitable process rather than a cosmic injustice.

Ultimately, the argument that negative emotions are irrational rests on the conflict between objective reality and subjective attachment. Objectively, human life is temporary, finite, and universally mortal. Subjectively, humans behave as though temporary conditions possess permanent meaning. Negative emotions emerge when reality conflicts with these emotionally constructed expectations. Society reinforces this process by teaching individuals to attach themselves to identities, goals, and hierarchies that possess no lasting permanence. Humans therefore suffer not simply because reality is painful, but because they irrationally demand reality conform to personal and social expectations. When viewed from the widest possible perspective, many negative emotions appear less like rational responses to truth and more like evidence of humanity’s inability to fully accept the temporary nature of existence.

After flowing a few world schools rounds, I have noticed that the debates get really messy on the flow towards the middle/back-half of the round. I understand that substance isn't the main factor going into the judges decisions, and that time to think of solid rebuttals practically non existent, but a lot of the speeches in the final rounds have little to no signposting(in a more traditional PF sense) and the clash between arguments becomes kinda hard to follow. Is there something that I am missing? or is this just the product of the WSD format not leaving enough prep time for super nuanced and organized rebuttals.

Im doing mostly the speech portion for my senior year. Does anyone have any monologue recommendations for humorous parts? Or any contrasting monologues in general?

I’m an author for speech!

I write custom scripts that are competition ready but recently I’ve been struggling to find inspiration to write pieces. I kinda fell into a rut and I want out! I really need a push to start writing again so I’d love to write more custom pieces and help some teams out!

It’d help A LOT if you’d like to comment ideas for something you’ve always wanted to see or I’m always available!

I also like to coach the pieces (if students are interested)!

What are and aren’t allowed for matter files in debate tournaments? I have a tournament coming up and I was informed that this particular tournament allows printed out matter files and I’m worried that I might have something that could be considered as unfair or a form of cheating.

I tried suggesting to the school principal, but the school got too involved and it became a 2-side debate, and we did not even get to choose our point of view; the teacher chose teams (Affirmative vs Negative) which was just idiotic. I was away for travel at the time, but it angered me when they did this, because what kind of debate is done in the presence of the principal and vice principal.

So can someone tell me how to do that without the involvement of this abomination of a school

One thing I find interesting about competitive debate is how much of the round can depend on knowing the judge before you even start debating

On one hand, judge adaptation is obviously a skill. If you know a judge values weighing, line-by-line, lay appeal, theory, speed, or evidence quality, adapting to that is part of being good

But on the other hand, there’s a point where it feels like the activity rewards insider knowledge too much. If two teams make similar arguments, but one team knows the judge’s preferences better because they’ve been around the circuit longer, have better coaching, or know the local meta, is that actually better debating?

I’m not saying judge paradigms are bad. They probably make rounds fairer than judges pretending they have no preferences. But I do wonder whether debate becomes less accessible when learning how to debate the judge matters almost as much as debating the motion

Where do people draw the line between fair judge adaptation and debate becoming too insider-heavy?

I’m curious where people here fall on this.

In competitive debate, there’s often a difference between the argument that technically wins on the flow and the argument that would actually persuade a normal intelligent person. A debater can sometimes win by extending dropped claims, exploiting wording, or collapsing hard on something the other side mishandled, even if their overall position feels weaker or less believable.

I get why that matters. Debate has rules, and if judges ignore drops or technical concessions, then it becomes much harder to evaluate rounds consistently. But I also think there’s a point where rewarding pure technicality makes debate feel detached from actual persuasion, which is supposed to be part of the skill.

So where should the line be?

Should a judge vote strictly on the flow, even if the winning argument is thin or unconvincing in the real world? Or should judges have more room to say, “you technically extended this, but it wasn’t developed enough to deserve the ballot”?

I’m especially interested in how competitors, coaches, and judges think about this across different events

Hey all,

I’m a junior in a mid-sized university debate club (60 members + coach).

My experience so far has been amazing. I’m taking part in multiple tournaments, I love everyone in the club, and everyone seems to like me as well.

I was recently approached by the current president and offered the role for next year.

Now, as much as I love my club, I’m not sure that being president is in my best interest.

My biggest concern is that I’ll get entangled in personal disputes or club politics, and that my friendships will be negatively affected by the position.

On the other hand, I may be the best fit for the role, I have strong connections with the club management and prior leadership experience (as a team leader), among other things.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on my situation and any suggestions you might have.

I want to do a DI on a book that has been translated from Korean to English, and I think using some of the Korean words during specific parts (Korean words for "mom," "dad," etc) would add to the impact, but I'm not sure if it's allowed. I looked at the High School Unified Manual, but it was still pretty vague.

Does anyone know?

Had a debate recently where my team and I felt the adjudicator was letting his personal opinions influence the decision instead of judging based on the actual clash. After the round, we discussed appealing because we all thought some of the comments crossed the line from adjudication into personal viewpoints.

I ended up being the one to speak during the appeal, but once the other team started framing it as us accusing the adjudicator of being unfair or incompetent, I tried to soften the wording and clarify that we just wanted a fair review of the decision. Afterwards though, some of my own teammates started saying the way it came across was “mean” and not what is usually according to what debaters do, even though the concerns raised were originally shared by all of us.

Now I’m wondering if I handled it badly, or if this is just one of those situations where the spokesperson ends up absorbing all the blame once things get uncomfortable.

So I’m looking to do poi next year, but idk what I can or can’t use. Does all of my material have to be in public domain?

Debaters seem to always use the same authors. What are some horrible authors that are used in debate all the time. I swear some of these cards are genuinely ass.

I’m quite disappointed, there’s a few good bills but a lot of these bills seem… really one sided for some reason. These feel like they were written by the NSDA rather than student submitted, since I’ve seen many of these appear at my local tournaments before and they were written by the NSDA (Congolese mining). Not to mention, it feels like most of the bills I ranked high (RTW laws I voted 1st…) didn’t appear in the final docket. 😕

I know that being a good Congress representative is more than just being able to debate well because delivery is supposed to be half the battle, but I feel like we should still focus on the debate first because it not only helps avoid rehash, but good bills will have fairly even splits to them.

If anybody wants the link, here is the docket below:

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Nats26\_Congress-Legislation-Docket-FINAL\_05-12.pdf

Title. My school is pretty small so I have no one to tell me, and everything online is just making me more confused. If im writing a theory shell (ex: disclosure theory), should I do competing interps or reasonability? And should a counterinterp be CI or reasonability?

Title. This only just now starting to occur to me. I should have noticed earlier but it doesn't matter atp. For context, Im a sophomore who goes to a pretty small school (3 debate teams total). One of the pf teams other than us are sophomores and my friends so this is mainly about them. Because of this, we have to do all our prep by ourselves. This doesn't bother me much. However, it's completely unfair because I do all the work essentially by myself.

This basically started when our seniors (who taught us everything) told us we had to start doing prep by ourselves. I wasn't too mad. We all chipped in and did our part. Next month, however, we were really rushed. Our coach signed us up for a tournament last minute, so we were supposed to lock in. What ended up happening was I did all the work by myself and my partner cut a singular card (and pretty terribly too). This part is without the other sophomore team. I spent a ton of time getting the block doc and cases ready while my partner did little to nothing. I didn't really think too much of it at the time tbh.

The next month, my partner and I were competing again. The same thing happened. I prepared a shit ton of stuff and still got basically no credit. This happens during rounds too btw. I basically write his entire speech while he just copy and pastes blocks. He doesn't even read any warranting unless I explicitly write it. This is all while juggling my speech too. He then tells me after round that he cooked during final focus. Well no shit. I wrote the entire fucking speech for you. At that same tournament 2 rounds later, we get back our RFDs for the around after. In one of them, the lay judge said that he couldn't understand almost anything in FF. In response to this, he didn't even try to improve himself. He just played it off by saying the judge was lay and didn't know what he was talking about. I talked to him about it, and he said he'd try to improve. After that though, he kept basically doing the same thing. Its like he doesn't even want to improve.

I only came to realize this a few weeks ago. We had to do this assignment where we had to make 2 theory shells. The other team and my partner then had the audacity to tell me that they had tons of work and basically made me do it. I was actually baffled by this. Do you think I dont have a ton of work to do, if not more than you? This is not even considering my other extracurriculars. I did it anyway (it only took me like 30 minutes). I told them about them needing to do more work and they said they would lock in next year. I highly doubt this though.

Later, I asked them to simply cut a card for me. They thankfully did it, but it was cut so terribly I had to redo the entire thing. I dont think they can cut a card correctly, let alone make a case. And this is after my and my debate coach's repeated lectures on formatting and how to create cases.

Im just tired of this. What should I do? Should I just wait it out and see if they get better? Should I confront them? I don't wanna be rude since they're my friends. Maybe im being too harsh on them. Or I can just switch to LD. Any advice is appreciated!

Just for some context, I am a current 2,3 and 4 in the WSD format - what I say here might not apply to other formats. To me it just feels as if debate, especially in crossfire or heavy rebuttal speeches, is locked behind talent. Personally I have anecdotal experience as I am only a second year in debate and I have far surpassed people who have 4+ years of experience. It makes sense to me as well, think about it, coming up with on the spot refs and POI/CF responses can be highly dictated by quick thinking that is determined in large by just intelligence as a whole. What are yall's thoughts? Can you reach a higher level in the long run despite a lower intelligence level? I personally think not.