Sam Heller Paradigm
Grady High School 2014 - 4 years policy debate
Harvard College 2018 - 2 years policy debate
Topic Knowledge 2017-2018 - I know the topic is education because I literally just googled it, that's it.
Be clear. I flow from your speech not your speech doc
I think it's incredibly difficult to make a strong case for most nuclear war impacts (especially on a topic about education), and my standard for impact defense against bad impact evidence is low.
This rest of this copied and pasted from Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, with a few changes to parts that I (slightly) disagree with him about.
I'm doubling down on the relevance of the line-by-line to my decisionmaking. I will no longer try to put arguments together for you, I'm tired of it. Answer arguments clearly, or they aren't answered.
Topicality is a thing and you should probably be topical. I'm not going to vote against you out of hand on jurisdiction, but I do think the aff should be topical as a general principle. This doesn't mean you need a plan text with "policy" advantages - I'm old but not that old
Reading a vague plan doesn't mean counterplans aren't competitive. I'm increasingly willing to vote on vagueness against a lot of these plans, especially when the aff makes wild clarifications of what the plan does in the 2ac.
Clarity is seriously an a priori concern. I'm going to suggest that you slow down from your incomprehensible top speed, and focus on increasing the quality of your arguments, rather than the quantity.
I won't dismiss anyone's arguments out of hand, but I might not love your arguments.
I have realized that research quality is becoming increasingly important to me. I don't think "having a card that says our claim in it" is a stand in for evidence with a warrant or explanation of logic. Make a good arg without a card before you read a shitty card.
I can't (won't? either way) vote on arguments that I don't understand, which behooves you to make me understand your arguments. The arguments in debate that I have the least understanding of are those rooted in high theory (Baudrillard, Deleuze, Lacan, etc.)
I don’t really like it when people debate with their heads down all the time. I think you would be better served slowing down and actually saying things, instead of trying to force the other team to drop stuff.
I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I think the aff has to construct a strong case for a departure from the status quo.
I am willing to vote affirmative on presumption. I think that the neg has to have a net benefit to their counterplan, and that "any risk of a link means you vote neg" is not a very educational standard for counterplan debates (though there are cases in which it makes sense).
My presumption is not for less change. Random change could just as easily be bad as good- you have to make an actual argument as to why less change it better.
Another thing I strongly agree with, from Michael Antonucci's wiki:
2. OVERHIGHLIGHTING IS DANGEROUS
Over-highlighted evidence can be pretty silly. It’s reached the point of implicit footnoting. I prefer the K teams that just overtly footnote stuff – it achieves the same effect without brutalizing the language. Even better, though, is reading evidence that completes arguments instead of alluding to arguments through disconnected violent noun phrases.
If your card:
- Doesn’t form complete sentences
- Only forms sentences through Phrase Legos
- Otherwise makes me think of “word salad”
I will probably discount it entirely.
That is true even if I’m very familiar with a fuller version of your card.
I might read around highlighting to determine context, but this generally can only hurt you.