Please include me on any email chains:
General/Not format specific:
- Above all, I will not tolerate any discrimination in round or out of round. Debate is a space that needs to be safe and open to all debaters.
- I'm mostly tech over truth but I have a higher bar for bad arguments.
- I'm a huge shill for Ks (but I have 90s K debater tastes), so if you run and understand Schlag I'll give you perfect speaks
- I have read a lot of literature, and I have experience with philosophy from the pre-Socratics to critical race theory. That said, I will prefer good explanation. If you can't explain your phil well, I won't vote for you.
- I'm okay with fw v K debate, but I really prefer if you substantively address the K, so either prove it wrong or K it back.
I want to expand on the above point a little bit, because I think there are two really bad attitudes toward K Affs (and really Ks in general) that pop up in debate rounds. The first is fear: Debaters are afraid of K affs, and so instead of trying to address why they're wrong, they use framework and theory arguments. Kritiks operate just like any other argument; arguments have an epistemology and an ontology. The difference between a kritik and, for example, stock issues, is that debaters using stock issues are often not aware of their own epistemology and ontology because they're normalized within the structure of debate. DEFEND YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY! Kritiks want to tell you your ways of knowing and categorization are in some way bad, you need to say that they're not. The K is wrong, and here's why. The second is disgust: debaters often think that K affs are, in the words of someone I otherwise consider an excellent debater, "cheating." I think this kind of attitude is bad for debate, full stop. While I will vote for framework if it wins the flow, I think framework v K arguments are usually bad, and win most often because debaters are unprepared to deal with them. The K is just another argument, so prove it wrong. Contrary to what I think is popular belief, debate isn't primarily a research event; debate is a critical thinking event. Use your brain to address the K, not some static, stale conception of debate that will instantly be proven to be anti-black/sexist/capitalist or whatever the K is you're hitting.
- My default interpretation of debate is that the only rules are speech time and speech order, and the only normative standards are fairness and education, but I can be convinced to change any of these positions
I don't really have much else to say. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.
Pref sheet (policy)
1. Topical K affs/KvK debate/Topical performance affs/Ks on neg
2. Fw v K/policy affs/non-T K affs
3. Trad debate
I am not a huge fan of tricks.
Pref sheet (LD)
1. Topical K affs/KvK debate
2. LARP rounds/Trad debate (just as long as it isn't too slow. I get that trad LD is a speech event but come on)