El Dorado Oct Novice Night
2019 — El Dorado, KS/US
Ben Barker Paradigm
Caleb Carter Paradigm
3 years at Derby High School
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org put me on the chain.
Speed: Clear>speed. if you're clear, go as fast as you can
CX: good CX gets good speaks. If you get an argument of CX EX: there is no link to a politics DA. PLEASE PUT IT IN THE SPEECH. Also, don't be mean :).
I default to competing interps. Please clash instead of just extending your argument. T isn't as strategic to go for in this topic, but I will evaluate it and think it is a great way to secure links.
They're cool obviously. if used with the CP clearly the debate moves more to if the cp solves the aff and how much.
Aff should POST the cp, Also explain the perm and how it works. NEG: The CP needs a net benefit, and it isn't we solve better. I'm lenient to aff when it comes to PIC, especially word PICS I'm open to all CP as long as it is competitive, this will probably change after I have enough bad CP.
I'm cool with the K, please don't say the K-word. Explain what that means. same goes for the alt, explain how it happens.
FW - As policy kiddo, I will probably lean closer to FW then I should however don't assume I will vote for you just because you say they aren't topical. you should clash with the aff. I need why topic edu is key and preferably, includes their edu (TVA). CX should help with this and should mold your FW argument.
K affs - they're okay, I honestly prefer topical aff, but don't run them if it will cause you to lose, run what you can win
for me to vote I need a reason for why topic edu is bad and/or what edu it causes to leave out. please explain the k words you use as I am small brain.
I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team.
Noah Coldwell Paradigm
Katie Davis Paradigm
Samantha Dudeck Paradigm
Isabelle Haahr Paradigm
EllieAna Hale Paradigm
I'm a third year debater at Derby who primarily debates in open and PFD, but I do have varsity experience. I will understand your argument if well put together and is presented clearly. Run any arguments you want, but they must pertain the round and you must have proper reasoning for running the argument. Feel free to speak at whatever speed, just make sure that you are clear with your words and arguments. I will not try to figure out who won, it is your job as debaters to present why you won and why I should vote for you, unless you are in a circumstance where the other team dropped everything, then in that case I know who has won the round. Frankly, just have fun with the round and be respectful towards your opponents, partners, and your judge. I do not tolerate unnecessary rude behavior, it’s a huge ethos kill. Don’t be a jerk.
If you have questions email me at email@example.com
Logan Hardgrave Paradigm
Gabby Harris Paradigm
I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm which means that the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.
Jason Hibbs Paradigm
Chris Malaby Paradigm
Jadyn Miller Paradigm
Preston Olson Paradigm
Breckin Olson Paradigm
Adriana Owens Paradigm
Xavier Ralston Paradigm
Jenna Ramsey Paradigm
Joseph Reist Paradigm
Lucas Reynolds Paradigm
Sage Roth Paradigm
Jack Sallman Paradigm
3 years at Derby High School
MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM
As God Lynn Miller once said, "it's in the email," therefore, you should put me on the email chain Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com
A few things:
Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.
Carrot and Stick (creds to Sean Duff):
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)
I start speaks at 27.5 and work my way up or down.
Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a complete butthole though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be homophobic, ableist, transphobic, sexist, racist.
Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Also crafty we meets are awesome.
I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it. I default more to magnitude and probability. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case.
POST the cp, but don't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it!
I'm fine with K debate for the most part. I've ran the Cap K, Derrida, Militarism, and am versed in Security. Rep K's are fine with me, please explain your k and assume I don't know it, explain your alt (I love it if you can contextualize it).
FW - I tend to lean towards the rez, but I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. IE, have they read a policy aff in the past? Turn their DAs, they don't access their impacts.
K affs - I'm fine with K affs. My main issue is that K aff teams just pull out their "101 buzz words that make me sound cool and confuse everyone in the round." If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. Also read "K" header for more info
I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. See CP for info about condo
Jacob Unruh Paradigm
Micah Whitley Paradigm
Kian Williams Paradigm
Please refer to me as Lil’ Stapler
Currently in my third year debating (Primarily DCI) for Hutchinson.
When asked what kind of a judge I am, I tend to identify as a Game Theorist. Debate is a game and you should do whatever it takes to win. Not enough teams tell me which arguments to weigh, and how each impact affects the other. I have my beliefs on every impact story, but I listen to you first. If you don’t give me impact analysis, I’ll do a lot on my own, but don’t take that risk.
DA’s: I don’t believe specific links are a necessity, if it makes sense it makes sense. I also don’t think debaters do a great job critiquing the link/internal-link story of the DA. If you don’t do impact calc and the other team does, it makes it very hard to flow the DA your way.
CP: Solving better doesn’t make me want to vote for you, so you have to have a net benefit. Solve "more" not just the same things "better". If the aff wins the Perm debate, the CP is shot. Condo is a great debate for which I have no bias for.
K: I am most familiar with Cap/Security/Militarization; you don’t need much explanation in those with me. In my eyes, the Alt has to have more than just “reject the aff”. The only time that works is for ableism/sexlism/language etc. K's. You can use it, but actually take action. Explain the world of the alt and the role of the ballot/judge. I default that debate is a game, so explain how you want me to view the ballot, and I will.
T: I think topicality is both underused, and misused argument. Topicality is perfect for a time skew, however if you debate that that is bad, I’ll listen. There’s this negative stigma in Kansas around reading topicality, but if you can use it intelligently, I don’t care. Don’t forget the standards and voters debate, that’s where I go first. You don’t need to prove abuse in the round, but in debate as a whole. You also have to have examples of what is topical, or there’s no point in complaining.
Theory: Slow down for it. I love good and intelligent theory debates.
F/W: This is where I want the majority of the 2NR/2AR, unless y'all decide to have absolutely none of it in the round. I think FW is where the vast majority of debates are won and lost. Tell me how to view the round give me a lense to view the round/impacts. If you don’t, you won’t like how I view things.
Speed/Delivery: I honestly don’t care how you get your evidence to me. I think it is ableist and exclusionary to give bad points to people because they stutter, speak quietly, and/or are high pitched. As long as I can verify that what you are saying matches the doc you share, do whatever you like/can do on delivery. I care vastly more about the evidence and arguments you provide over the way you convey them.
Don't stare at me during CX... It's weird.
Evidence: Please take the time to read and critique the oppositions evidence. If I feel like the evidence doesn’t match what you say at all, I’ll intervene and disregard the argument. I don’t intervene often, but if you are misrepresenting the evidence, that is something I will intervene on. That being said, I do want your evidence if you debate with a computer.
Debate has no room to any negative stereotypes or degrading arguments/comments. If you are any bit racist/sexist/etc. I will vote you down faster than the airspeed of an unladen swallow.
What I want you to get out of my paradigm is to do whatever you want. This is a learning experience, and I want you to do what you need to do to get better.
Ideal Round: A lot of people ask what my preferred debate looks like, so I’ll answer if I have to. My ideal round consists of a topical aff with existential impact advantages, versus a Cap K with an actual action alt, and a DA (that doesn’t contradict). The debate revolves around the impacts - which are worse/who can actually solve - and good framing. 2NR/2AR comes down to impact calc between the Adv and the Alt. I hate voting for the SQ, I like change to be made (in either direction of the resolution), so substitute the K with a CP if you prefer. That being said, I'm not dissuaded by DA's, I just don't think they are anywhere near as strong as a CP or K.
Lastly, please be funny/have fun. I feel like debate is becoming boring/stale/way to serious. Give me some jokes. Say some memes. Your speaker points will thank you.