Lucia Scott ParadigmLast changed 1/11 7:59P CDT
She/her or gender neutral pronouns. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: lucia.scott at barstowschool.org
Previous debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)
Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)
I appreciate scrappy debate. Tech over truth with some exceptions as outlined below. However, the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. Quality over quantity; what constitutes quality is, of course, up for debate. Questions are not arguments. Don't ask what the aff does, explain that it doesn't do anything.
The rest of this paradigm is written in very certain terms to avoid confusion, but all of these are really just my defaults. My preferences won't keep me from voting any particular way.
I get really grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything).
With the exception of conditionality, theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing. I will vote on conditionality.
As far as topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. That means "predictability good" isn't an impact. Explaining why predictability is good is an impact. What aff's are now allowed that you can't prepare for? What arguments do you lose, and why do those arguments matter? I don't think there's such a thing as an "intrinsic good" in a debate.
Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means.
My favorite part of debate. I can be persuaded to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.
I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.
This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important.
On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work. I think counterplans should have solvency advocates. Not a fan of word PICs. If your word PIC has critical implications, I generally think you're better off just running it as a kritik. I don't kick the counterplan unless the 2NR tells me to. I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff.
My threshold for a link here seems to be comparatively low. I think this "no reps links" argument people keep making is absolutely ridiculous.
My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. I don't necessarily think you need to win the alt to win the k, but it's probably a good idea to have an alt.
Framework arguments that compare world-views (i.e. "extinction outweighs epistemology") are far more compelling than framework arguments about procedural fairness (i.e. "the K is cheating"). I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but usually I end up concluding that I should weigh the aff.
For the 2AC, stick to the things that are really important. Don't read things/ make arguments you'll never go for unless they're actually dropped. It's a waste of time you don't have.
I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for aff. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method. Similarly, not of fan of consciousness-raising arguments. I don't know why that means I should vote for you.
I am more persuaded by T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution than framework violations about the fg. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education and fairness implicate one another.
I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. 90% of the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.
Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it.
Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why.
So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I don't really know what to do with speaks here, tbh. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much I like you.
I start at a 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. I will doc speaks if you combine the case pages at any point after the 1AC. Do real case debate.