Neal Kurande ParadigmLast changed 1/6 9:24P EDT
Alpharetta High School 2016
Georgia Institute of Technology 2020
I used to debate for Alpharetta HS. I was more policy oriented than K oriented when I debated. When evidence is presented in round, it needs to be explained or referenced in later speeches for me to consider the evidence in my decision. My spreading is not the same as it used to be, so if you are fast but borderline unclear, I won't be able to understand you. I'll let you know if you are unclear in your speeches. Outlines my thoughts on specific arguments are below.
I enjoy a good DA/Case debate. Impact calculus and specific interactions between Case and DAs are what win rounds. Make my life easy and do a good job on your Impact Calculus. Since everything leads to nuclear war nowadays, I tend to prefer more probabilistic impacts.
I like counter plans and will evaluate them as a impact defense to plan if they solve it and have a net-benefit of some kind. Counter plans do not need a solvency advocate especially if the other team is breaking a new affirmative. That being said, do not abuse this power as it can make for an extremely strong argument in the Condo Debate. Process CPs are definitely a viable strategy against many affs, but I think that many of them are resolved through a Perm. The neg needs to prove why the aff can't undergo this process in a reasonable interpretation of fiat for the CP to be able to survive a Perm.
Like I said above, I was a more policy oriented debater than a K debater. While I may not be well versed in critical literature anymore, I still very much enjoy the K debate. Explanation is key. I'm fine with almost any K being read in front of me, but if you read something like Death Good or another morally appalling K, I won't be happy.
T is my favorite argument in debate, and I find theory debates in general to be highly nuanced and full of clash. When evaluating T I need a good explanation of your impacts and need the same level of impact calculus that would traditionally come with a DA/Case debate. That being said, I don't think the standard impacts of fairness and education are good impacts for a theory debate. Fairness is not an impact in itself, but an internal link to one. You need to explain to me what would happen if the game were to become unfair, and how would that impact the skills you take away from debate. Education can be an internal link into T impacts, but I don't feel like education is unique to debate as a whole. You need to explain why education in a debate round is important. If your education based offense can be solved by reading a book, then it probably isn't a good impact that's unique to the activity.
Case Lists- I feel like I need to address this argument. I do not have an in-depth knowledge about what affs are viable or not. So if the Neg were to present a case list, I need the Aff to point out exactly how egregious the case list really is, because I don't really know, so I can not do any of that work for you.
Full Judging Record
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||VCX||8 Quarte||Montgomery Bell PH||Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart AD||Neg||Neg on a 3-0|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||6 R6||Henry W Grady KL||USN CW||Aff|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||5 R5||Woodward TP||Montgomery Bell CH||Neg|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||3 R3||USN CL||Montgomery Bell ZA||Aff|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||VCX||2 R2||Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart MA||Montgomery Bell PH||Neg|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||VCX||1 R1||Montgomery Bell YM||Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart AD||Neg|