2017 Tournament of Champions Round 2 PCDS PW (Neg) vs. Cambridge OS (Aff) — Watch with transcript
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings
Videos
Shared
Debate
Practice vs AI
Research
settings

Videos

  • All Videos

  • Lectures

  • NDT

    College Policy

  • CX

    HS Policy Teams

  • LD

    HS Debate 1v1

  • PF

    HS Public Forum

  • Greatest of All-Time

  • My Favorites

  • Watch History

Research

  • Research Workspace
  • Card Search
  • Team Research
  • Leaderboard

Practice

  • Practice vs AI
  • Prep Workspace
  • Practice Partners
  • Practice Drills
  • AI Judge Decision

Coaching

  • Tournaments
  • Coach Workspace
  • Research Progress
  • Laptop-less Debating
  • News & Forums

Insights

  • Team Rankings
  • Debater Level
  • Topics & Video Statistics
  • Prediction Markets
  • Formats & Rules
  • Glossary of Terms
  • All Features

  • All Videos

  • College Policy

    College Policy

  • HS Policy Teams

    HS Policy Teams

  • HS Public Forum

    HS Public Forum

  • HS Debate 1v1

    HS Debate 1v1

  • Lectures

    Lectures

  • Watch History

  • Greatest of All-Time

    Greatest of All-Time

  • My Favorites

    My Favorites

  • WSD

  • ACC

  • Speech

Research

Practice

Coaching

Insights

DocsBlogGitHubGithubSupportPrivacyRedditReddit
Video library
'17

2017 Tournament of Champions Round 2 PCDS PW (Neg) vs. Cambridge OS (Aff)

Jun 29, 20172.6k

Round starts at 6:23. Parker Whitfill negates vs. Oliver Sussman in Round 2 of TOC (they also debate in semis of TOC, where Parker is side locked aff). Judge is Sam Azbel. 2NR goes for evidence ethics, decision is for the negative. Suggestions for redos: 1) Don't miscut or mistag your evidence. Makes winning a lot harder than it needs to be. 2) Redo this 1ar where you generate offense in the 1ar for miscutting ev good OR contest competing interps heavily. Also don't drop that academic honesty comes lexically prior other impacts. 3) Practice the 2N as is, it's pretty good. Also try the 2N where you just go for substance and kick out of academic honesty. ——————— Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/debatedrills Join our newsletter: http://www.debatedrills.com

Comments

Loading comments…

Pro Constructive

Affirmative

Play to where each speech begins and press Mark start, or let Detect speeches find them all — the timeline, the playing marker and each speech's captions follow.

Judges

What else could the Pro Constructive have done? Claude drafts 3 alternative responses and predicts how a flow judge would vote after each, next to the speech as it was given.

  • Flow judge: A technical, experienced circuit judge who votes on the flow: dropped arguments are true, extensions need warrants, and weighing decides close rounds.

Simulated responses and ballots are Claude's predictions from a rough transcript, not real results. Each run is a new AI request.

Related videos

DoublesTournament of Champions·VikrantDebate

The 1AC was Disarm. The 2NR was the North Korea DA and an Advantage CP. The decision was for the negative (Lewis, Greer, Keller).

Apr 23, 20260.6k
OctafinalsTournament of Champions·Lynbrook Debate
Apr 18, 20262.1k

Queue

Nothing queued. Add a related video with itsbutton and it lines up here, to play when this one ends.

DocsSettings