CX Debate
Puppies and Valium
10-02-2005, 02:08
Who likes CX debate here? Come on, fess up. We debaters are an enlitghened community, and the purpose of this thread here is to trade cx evidenc, files, kritiks and other such blagrum. Why, I would trade three files for some good 06 precamp evidence! Who wants to trade. (All you confused people, CX is a high school and college cpeech event. Go. Go far away from the esoteric world of Debate.)
Who likes CX debate here? Come on, fess up. We debaters are an enlitghened community, and the purpose of this thread here is to trade cx evidenc, files, kritiks and other such blagrum. Why, I would trade three files for some good 06 precamp evidence! Who wants to trade. (All you confused people, CX is a high school and college cpeech event. Go. Go far away from the esoteric world of Debate.)
I did LD debate in HS, never did CX.
I thought this said (don't ask) "VX Debate". :eek:
I was hoping to debate about chemical weapons.... :(
I like debating, but I've never joined my school's debating team. Too many band practices! :p
I thought this said (don't ask) "VX Debate". :eek:
I was hoping to debate about chemical weapons.... :(
What's CX? :p
Cross Examination. I think thats what they mean at least.
Cross Examination. I think thats what they mean at least.
"All you confused people, CX is a high school and college cpeech event. Go. Go far away from the esoteric world of Debate."
I missed that line....
Camustan
10-02-2005, 02:20
I'm on the circuit in Georgia, but I'm a senior in high school and will not be debating in college. Man, don't beg for civil lib ev, go look through your backfiles on the privacy topic for things like the rights talk K and maybe an 8 min Statism file. I come from the same school as the Scu and tend to have that if its not a K its not a debate paradigm (8 minutes of Hardt and Negri at the beginning of the year to a reject the round performance 1NC now)
Vegas-Rex
10-02-2005, 02:25
LD ROCKS! CX SUCKS!
Calvinist regeme
10-02-2005, 02:29
yes cx is quite fun quite fun o and LD blows noodles :sniper:
The age old battle of "CX vs LD". I remember arguing with the CX kids when I was still in HS.
Camustan
10-02-2005, 02:31
I'll go ahead and explain CX a little more in depth, mostly because I'm bored. It consists of an affirmative and negative team in a time-structured round in front of a judge. The affirmative team offers a plan to meet the resolution Resolved: That the USFG should establish a foriegn policy significantly increasing its support of UN PKOs. Something called "fiat" allows debaters to assume plan gets passed and debate its merits. Some negative teams (like myself) tend to reject fiat and argue the effects plan's rhetoric and assumptions have on the individuals inside the room. Speeches alternate with periods of cross-examination between the early, longer speeches. It goes like this:
8 Minutes: 1AC (contains the affirmative's indictment of the status quo and their proposition for change)
3 Min: C-X
8 Min: 1NC (the contruction of the negatives indictment of the Aff plan. This can contain political process disadvantages, debate specific arguments [ie, the plan structure does not meet regulation] or real world philo arguments like plan is racist, or engenders patriarchy.
3 Min: CX
8 Min: 2AC (The aff answers the negative arguments and applies offense on their case)
3 Min: CX
8 Min: 2NC (This is where the debate shifts a bit. The neg gets this speech as well as the next speech which is the first rebuttal. This allows 13 minutes of neg speech time, and generally each member of the team takes the arguments they are most comfortable with in order to explode them so much that the 1AR will have a difficult time answering them in 5 minutes.
3 Min: CX
5 Min: 1NR
5 Min: 1AR (Hardest speech. Answers 13 minutes of argument in 5.)
5 Min: 2NR
5 Min: 2 AR
Camustan
10-02-2005, 02:32
I'll explain LD now too:
Kids that couldn't cut it in policy debate and/or couldnt carry the massive amounts of evidence we lug around.
Dobbs Town
10-02-2005, 02:33
I had little or no interest in debate in high school. Mostly due to being the one person in a class of 30+ students who took the opposing side in the debates in my sociology class.
One day, one of the future businessthingys I went to school with assumed, in conversation with me, that I was simply playing Devil's Advocate, and taking the contrary position just to show everyone else up. Not that he was being negative with me - he just made an assumption.
He looked like he'd swallowed an ostrich egg when I told him that no, just as (I'd assumed) everybody else took the side they believed in, so had I. I unwittingly cemented my reputation (which I was blithely unaware of, to boot) as one of the biggest nutters enrolled there.
The thought of getting into a debating club never really appealed to me.
I'll explain LD now too:
Kids that couldn't cut it in policy debate and/or couldnt carry the massive amounts of evidence we lug around.
Ohhhhh, not very nice.
Camustan
10-02-2005, 02:35
If you had debated, you would have realized that you are most certainly not the "most nutters." You want nutters, listen to someone tell you that Thomas Malthus' ideas of The Crunch outweigh attempting to solve for landmines.
LD, my friend, is the true path of debate.
Camustan
10-02-2005, 02:38
I'd probably agree with you about LD, but I've never done it and most LDers I've met on circuit have been losers who couldn't argue a K (the most LD of CX) if their life depended on it. I have been accused of attempting to turn a CX round into a LD round by many judges, but its only because some rounds I take all the speeches and have my partner silently hang posters in the room.