3 years of CX with Prosper High School (TX)
Broke at TFA state and nat circuit tournaments
Important for online debates! I'm hard of hearing. For whatever reason, my hearing aids have difficulties picking up every word over online debate platforms. Spreading at your top speed for online debates probably isn't the best due to lag and me not being able to lipread properly. It's probably safest to spread at 80% of your normal speed, I'll let you know if it isn't clear enough for me to hear. FLASH YOUR ANALYTICS PLEASE! If you have any questions related to speed, feel free to spread a couple of sentences before the round starts for me and I'll let you know. :)
-Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
-I'll give an RFD unless something weird happens/the tournament is significantly delayed. If you still have questions after the round, feel free to email me
-Speed is fine. Slow down for analytics if I don’t have them.
-I'm mostly truth over tech unless the drops are very significant or if I'm convinced to prefer tech over truth. If you're trying to convince me to prefer tech over truth, make sure you explain why the arguments dropped should influence the direction of the round. (If I'm not flowing on paper, I promise I'm flowing on my laptop)
-Open CX is fine. So is prompting. (Anything too excessive may affect speaker points, and avoid interrupting or talking over a female partner as it can be very obvious and offputting)
-Line by line >>>>>>>>> overviews
-I ran more K arguments than non-K arguments, but a well-run policy argument is better than a terribly run K
-BE NICE! Especially in rounds where one team/partner is more experienced than the other, be nice. Please respect other people's identities/experiences, and treat your partner nicely
-I don't count sending the cards as prep but merging docs while your partner is typing as fast as possible is prep
LD/Anything Other Than CX:
-Just do what you normally do. Keep in mind what my CX paradigm says and feel free to ask questions about it before the round starts.
-I really like framing in LD, please have it!
-Slow down on topic-specific arguments and explain them more than you normally would.
-CPs, Plans, and Kritikal stuff is fine in LD.
-Traditional value/criterion arguments are totally fine, so is less traditional framing. Just please, please have framing arguments. :)
-Don’t assume that I know everything about the aff, especially at the start of the season.
-I’d vote on presumption if the argument is well-made.
-I especially like cases with framing in the 1ac.
-Actually explain your solvency mechanism (having a solvency advocate is also nice). Far too often, neg teams will only debate impacts and don't respond to the solvency of the aff.
-Especially for novices, don't drop your case in the rebuttals. Make sure you extend your case and not just your responses to the case arguments. Dropping the case is an easy way to lose my ballot (unless you're dropping it for a strategic/theory-related reason).
-I’ve run them, I love them.
-Please!! Don't have super long overviews!! Please do line-by-line!!
-They don’t have to have real-world solvency unless the neg convinces me that they do.
-Please don't be super shifty in cross about what your k does, try to explain and stick to the mechanism of your alt
-If it’s from an uncommon K lit base, you should probably explain it to me. You can ask me before the round if I know a specific lit base. (I specialize in qt, settler colonialism, disability ks, biopower)
-If it isn't in the direction of the topic at all, your framing should be really good. (Try to keep it in the direction of the topic please)
-I ran a k aff my senior year and did a 2ar against cap and/or t usfg nearly every single round, so try to spice it up a bit if you're neg
-Also, it's super important to be extra nice if the other team is unfamiliar with k affs.
-Just tell me why to vote for you and why your performance matters for the world of debate. I ran a narrative/identity aff my senior year if that means anything to you. I’m not going to vote you up for the only reason that you perform (framing will be an important issue) but I’ll 100% vote for a performance.
-Please, please have it. Tell me how to vote for you and why your framework outweighs.
-I love role of the ballot/judge, especially if they aren’t self-serving and can improve the overall world of debate.
-Reading a generic framing block is a lot more boring than reading framing specific to the issues of the round (but it's still better than no framing at all)
-Please!! Don't have super long overviews!! Please do line-by-line!!
-I was mostly a K debater my senior year, but please don’t run a K you don’t understand to try and get my ballot because I'd rather a well-run policy argument than a terribly run K. Don’t assume I know everything about a kritik.
-Explain the alt to me (and it doesn’t have to be pragmatic/material unless the aff convinces me that it does; just explain what it looks like). Don't be shifty about the alt in cx
-Explain why perms can/can’t solve.
-K framing is going to be pretty important.
-Root cause claims are also a debate to be had.
-T and Framework debates are especially important near the start of the season.
-Please don’t extend this into the 2nr if you’re going for another offcase (unless you have a good reason).
-I’ll default to reasonability or competing interps- just tell me (it’ll be reasonability if you don’t specify).
-TVAs+SSD with clear explanations are infinitely more convincing that "they're unfair that's bad" arguments. Fairness is a voter but there are better reasons to vote for T/FW
-A framework debate that is specific to the aff is the best type. If it's obvious you/your team read this exact framework shell in response to every single k aff ever, it's so much less persuasive.
-Specificity + uniqueness >>>> super generic
-I’d prefer it if you have specific links. Make sure you warrant each card in the rebuttals and tell me why the impacts outweigh.
-Please don't read outdated politics disads, it'll lose you a lot of credibility/speaker points
-If it's a politics disad, I love evidence recency (and also debates on why recency should/shouldn't matter).
-Innovative, unique CPs are better than a generic CP (but I'll vote for whatever)
-Explain why they can’t perm, especially if you have good no perm cards.
-“Cheating” CPs are fine unless the aff says they’re not and gives a good reason.
-Solvency advocates make your CP so much better.
-Explain your net benefit and if it is something other than avoids the DA, that's even better
-Tell me why to vote for it and how it improves the world of debate. If you're reading 4+ theory shells as a time suck that's not cool and will likely annoy me :(
-I hate intervening and voting for theory if it was a 5 second blip in the 2ac/block
-I'm a lot more likely to vote for condo if there's more than 3 condo arguments (if there's less than 3, I'll still vote if it's well explained)
-I really don't like disclosure theory but I'll vote on it if the argument is well made
-Speed theory/accessibility-related things are interesting
-Please do slow down on theory if its not in the speech doc. If its a 5 second blip that's not in the speech doc, I'll have a lot harder time flowing the theory argument
I generally give high speaker points. I won't go below 27.5 unless something problematic happens.
My speaker points will vary based off of the tournament (a 30 at a local probably won't be a 30 at the TOC)
30: Wonderful debater :)
29-29.9: Very good speaker and you make very minimal mistakes
28.5-28.9: I can tell that you’re trying although you’re doing some things that annoy me (like not warranting things or telling me why to vote for you)
27.5-28.4: You’re making significant mistakes either because you don’t care or you don’t know any better yet
0-25: I'll give the lowest speaker points possible if you're being super problematic/racist/sexist/etc