Archive for the 'South Coast Debate Summit' Category

ODEF Tournament #2 – Coquille HS

Big thanks to Coquille for letting us use their school for the second ODEF tournament. This was our first independent debate-only gathering and it did not disappoint.

First time competitors Alexis Busso and Wlnsvey Campos of Bandon HS came out on top this time! Using a case they researched about deflection of asteroids, they were undefeated on the day. Good work girls, and best of luck at the rest of the tournaments this year!

Top three speakers received ODEF expandos – congratulations to: 3rd speaker Alexis Ladig of Coquille; 2nd speaker Mariyam Suleiman of Coquille; and 1st speaker Wlnsvey Campos of Bandon!

Thumbs up from Coquille's Jake Skretting

Bandon Busso/Campos plotting

Coquille's Kaitlyn Dixon and Mariyam Suleiman get judges' feedback

CHS' Alexis Ladig takes a question from a Bandon-Coquille hybrid team Gritzbach/Smith

ODEF - Jan 12 Coquille HS

Sign up for the Coquille HS Cross-X tournament here!

Join us for our free tournament at Coquille High School to get some practice in CX debate! Join us January 7th from 9:30 am to 6 pm. We’ll be providing lunch and three rounds of competition, plus finals and cool awards for teams and top speakers.

Anyone who would like to give debate a try is welcome to attend, even if you haven’t been to one of our workshops. A free evidence set will be available here for download on December 23rd.

Teams: Please send an email to odef.directors@gmail.com with your team info. Send us a list of entries with your school and first and last names. If you are interested in using your own researched evidence at the tournament, please let us know so we can prepare accordingly. Entries are due by January 4th, 2011.

Judges: Anyone interested in judging novice to intermediate CX debate please send your name and availability to odef.directors@gmail.com.

Continue reading ‘Sign up for the Coquille HS Cross-X tournament here!’

How to research a disadvantage: Part four – Impact

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

Finally, impacts.

Now that we’ve proven that we’re driving along a cliff now, and the affirmative will swerve us off that cliff, we have to do the part that seems most unnecessary: why is driving off a cliff bad?

Seriously, though, impact research can be really tough. Not only are you trying to find evidence to support arguments that are (sometimes) totally intuitive, you also want them to quantify how bad the problem is. How fast will we drive off the cliff, how deep is the chasm, and what else will be affected by the crash?

There’s a few ways to research impacts, and you should probably use a mixture of all of them. Key steps:

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage: Part four – Impact’

How to research a disadvantage: Part three – Link

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

Second, Links.

I think links are the easiest thing to research on a disadvantage. You usually know just what you’re looking for, and the evidence doesn’t change all that often. That being said, you have to know what you’re looking for and what your disadvantage needs.

To be a really good disad, you want link evidence to every possible affirmative. Given that this isn’t possible, you usually want to research a couple specific links and one good general one. For our example, I’ll try to find specific evidence against 1) ballistic missile defense, 2) solar power satellites, and 3) a general link.

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage: Part three – Link’

How to research a disadvantage: Part two – Uniqueness

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

First, uniqueness:

For a spending disadvantage, we’ll need to find an argument that the government is controlled in its spending now. Not easily done, if you’ve been reading the news lately. Good uniqueness research takes a bit of craftmanship and lots of searching for the right words.

Google is an indispensable research tool, but you have to learn to use it right. If we just google “spending uniqueness” or “spending is low” you will come up with no relevant hits. For uniqueness, I usually like to start by looking on Google News. Click on “News” on the top bar of Google.com and you’ll be able to search recent articles from all over the world. Beware of non-reputable news sources; Google news also usually displays articles from blogs and regional newspapers that might be of no help to you.

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage: Part two – Uniqueness’

How to research a disadvantage – Part one: intro to DAs

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

Intro to disadvantages:

Disadvantages (or disads, or DAs) are a negative’s bread and butter. They are the most common type of negative argument, and before you get too far into your debate career, you probably ought to have a couple in your arsenal that you know backward and forward, almost like your affirmative.

Today we are going to discuss a specific brand of disadvantage: a generic disadvantage. These types of disadvantages, as the name implies, have a wide applicability, in order to cut down on the uncertainty of the affirmative’s plan. More specific disadvantages are often preferable, but it’s best to learn from a general standpoint to get the basics down. Today, we’ll be discussing these issues from an example called a “Spending Disadvantage” the general thesis of which is that the affirmative plan spends so much money that it will tank the economy.

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage – Part one: intro to DAs’

ODEF’s Second South Coast Workshop

Thanks to everyone who could make it this weekend to ODEF’s winter workshop in the South Coast Debate series! Representatives from Coquille, Bandon, and North Bend made it to Coquille HS for a workshop on CX debate.

We covered:

1) How to ask (and answer) killer Cross Examination questions – students tried to keep their cool under pressure, and we learned about the evil of questions that start with “isn’t it true that…”

2) How to analyze opponents’ evidence – we talked about how to research evidence and how to point out flaws in your opponents’ evidence, even when you don’t have any evidence on the topic.

3) How to weigh impacts – we learned how to make effective comparisons for judges in rebuttals.

All in all it was a fabulous day of work.

Remember that the second part of the workshop is the free tournament at Coquille High School on January 7th. Anyone who wants to give debate a try is strongly encouraged to attend, even brand new competitors. You can research your own evidence, or we have a starter set available for everyone! Hope to see you there!

Nathan Highsmith (North Bend) cross-examines Mariyam Suleman (Coquille)

Mariyam answers a question from Nathan

Alexis Battle! Alexis Ladig (Coquille) reads, Alexis Busso (Bandon) prepares her questions.

Jake from Coquille cross-examines Rachel Mosley

Kaitlyn Dixon (Coquille) and Michael Hobson (North Bend) compare notes while analyzing evidence