Since West Georgia I have been considering a theoretical issue that confronted me as a result of something that happened in the quarters debate. What is the status of an argument that is neither explicitly contested nor explicitly conceded? I would appreciate others thoughts and comments.

Are you a debate theory junkie? The theory of intrinsicness is rightfully making a comeback. If you are interested in defending your 2AC intrinsicness arguments or how judges make decisions read on...

The discussion about judge choice has been pretty interesting. To consolidate and improve the dicussion, I've created a new thread with a summary of my main responses to critics. Full read within.

Also - the picture I've chosen for this post has nothing to do with its content -- I just think its pretty sweet.

The introduction of paperless debating risks upsetting the current structure of reciprocal norm compliance as it creates new incentives for both paperless and paper teams to take actions that are in their favor at the detriment of their competitors.

In debates that take place between policy teams and project teams, one central sticking point tends to be over the merits of switch side debate in our activity. How do the goals of Project debating interact with the ideals and practices of what is commonly known as “switch side debate”?

This post is John Turner's response to Harrigan's theory of "judge-choice", presented in this post at Georgia Debate and discussed further by Bill Batterman at the 3NR.