Last changed on
Sun April 11, 2021 at 3:31 PM CDT
Ted Shi
Blue Valley Southwest - 2016-2019
Currently a student at UT Dallas (not debating)
Affiliations - Blue Valley Southwest, Pace
I look angry, but I'm not. Usually.
Email - tedshi09[at]gmail[dot]com
What you're here for - As a judge, I am willing to listen to any argument (barring ethically suspect arguments). It is always possible to persuade me to vote a certain direction, regardless of my ideological alignment. However, like any judge, there are certain arguments that are a little more difficult to persuade me to vote for, and I believe having some insight on how I debated might clear up some confusion. As a debater, I primarily went for right-leaning, policy arguments. All of my affirmatives had a plan text, and the majority of my 2NRs versus policy affs were either a CP and DA, DA and case, or T. On odd occasions, I went for the K, but those never extended beyond the neolib/security scope of things. Versus K-affs, I never had a 2NR that wasn't framework.
Overall - Debate is a competitive research activity. The bounds of that research are confined within a predetermined topic of discussion. This doesn't necessarily mean that the discussions within debate need to be a policy advocating for USFG action, but they should be centered around the words in the resolution.
Topic - My knowledge regarding this year's topic is approximately zero. Unfortunately I can't be involved as much as I'd like with debate these days. If you're smart, you might be able to use my lack of knowledge to steal a ballot.
Framework/K-Affs - I'm unlikely to understand as much as you think I do. Please explain. This doesn't mean read an overview for 4 minutes off your laptop. Like I said above, debate is a competitive research activity. Both the aff and the neg should attempt to reconcile what this means, or offer a more compelling alternative to what debate is.
Ks on the Neg - Like above, your theoretical jargon will likely sound like nonsense. I'm typically very convinced by arguments that prioritize pragmatism over critical evaluation. Letting the affirmative weigh their plan and having links specific to that plan encourages more fair, educational discussion.
Disads - Uniqueness and link arguments are almost never yes/no questions and explaining them as such frustrates me. As a debater, you should be making comparative claims between your evidence and arguments with that of the opposing team.
Counterplans - Advantage counterplans are obviously better if they solve the internal link to the aff's advantage. Its difficult to persuade me that counterplans that subsume the affirmative are theoretically legitimate.
Case - Like you'll see in every other paradigm, this portion of the debate is underutilized, especially by the neg. On the neg, you can really mess with some teams here. Beefy case arguments and impact turns can really throw off 2ac organization and create openings elsewhere. Impact turns are really interesting and often have better evidence quality than most disads.
Topicality - I'm typically more convinced by reasonability than competing interpretations. This argument will require a lot of explanation given my unfamiliarity with the topic.
Theory - Please actually speak slower. I'm the slowest flower I know.
