Ryan Reza ParadigmLast changed 9/7 6:20P CDT
Debated Policy @ Washburn Rural HS (2014-2018)
Lover of food and liberalism and Tim Ellis
What's up! First off, don't be rude in round! If you're outrageously rude in round it will be very hard to win my ballot. Be nice, and have fun. Debate is an activity where everyone should be enjoying their time, that is why it was created. Not for you to flaunt around your arrogance.
-Tech over truth, must have warranted arguments.
-Debate arguments that you are most comfortable with!
-I won't do your work for you
-Use CX to your benefit, I'm a big fan
-If you have non cringy puns in your intros I respect you more
-I don't know a lot about this topic yet, so explain acronyms you might use or specific theories etc. Else I won't know whats happening probs
Listen I'm a little out of the whole speed thing. I am going to assume you're faster than I was in HS, however, if you are clear I will be able to follow along. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". If you do not become clear after I have said it, I'll wait a couple seconds then stop flowing.
-Reject the arg, not the team for all instances besides maybe condo
--For Condo there should be some pretty heavy in round abuse, and you have to prove it to me. Don't just read blocks, use your head.
I'm a fan of topicality. But because I'm lazy and Tim worded it well enough here is an excerpt from his paradigm
Topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability is an uphill battle for me, but I find myself being more persuaded by it as neg teams get worse and worse at extending an impact to their T argument. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull, and it will take a pretty egregious violation or a crush of a spec debate for me to vote against someone for not specifying agent, funding, etc.
Thank you for listening to Tim's ted talk
Ha I'm not too familiar with this aspect of debate. If you run an aff w/o a plan text that is perfectly fine. All you have to do is explain it to me and why your standard of debate is better for the activity and whatnot. If you just give me depth less arguments about how debate sucks now and the USFG is bad then it will not be an easy ballot to win. I will most likely lean negative in these types of debates, because fairness typically aligns towards the neg in these debates. But the negative team needs to do work if they want to win. Having offense on case and on top of that adding external impacts is important. Don't just throw together BS arguments at the end of the round, you'll need to do work to win.
Regardless, you do you. Explain your arguments, answer the other team's. You'll gain a ballot. Probably.
I am not to well versed in K literature, however, that does not mean I won't vote on it. Traditionally, if the team does a good job of explaining the world of the kritik and how the kritik is good, then they will be fine. If you read a K just to confuse your opponents, you will also confuse me.
-I think you should try and explain to me how the K looks in the debate, whether that is the post plan implications or whatever is happening in the round.
-Explain the alt well. That is probably important. Having good links to the aff is a plus, if it is a bunch of SQUO stuff it won't be very convincing.
-If the neg goes for FW be sure to explain the argument throughout the debate. And have a specific interpretation for me to vote on.
Big fan. Big fan. Big fan. I love me a good Disad.
-Try and have specific Links
-Politics DAs are pretty good. They might not make sense a lot of the time but you know
-Be sure to cover Case along with the DA. That is a pretty spicy combo in my eyes
-Have a nice internal link chain. I wanna know why doing the aff causes the world to explode into a ball of fiery doom
-Not too sure what else to say. Explain the world of the aff and how the DA trumps all Aff benefits
CPs are good. CP + DA is always good. I'm not super technical and informed on CP theory but:
-Delay CPs, probably bad
-Consult/Conditions CPs, def bad unless they have a specific solvency advocate
-Cut the other team's solvency advocate and make it into a CP. That is pretty spicy.
-Word PIC's are annoying
Speaker points (I'm still figuring this out so it could be different in the future and whatnot)
29.4+ -- Straight fire (One of the best I've seen)
29-29.3 -- Speaker Award at the tournament
28.6-28.9 -- Good, no complaints in terms of speaking ability (Above Average/Average - comments will determine)
28.0-28.5 -- Didn't do anything distinctly "wrong", critiques here and there about issues (A bit below average - you're getting there)
27s -- Dropping arguments, ending speeches early, etc. (Needs improvement - but hey you'll get there)
If you get anything below a 27 it means there was something that did not belong in the debate. Meaning rudeness, cheating, etc.
Idk other stuff that is probably important
Don't just say random debate words. Have warrants for every argument you make. BE CLEAR for analytical blocks. Have fun.
-1AR must be fire. It's a requirement
-Make jokes. If they are bad I will dock you speaker points (-.5 per joke), however, if they are good you will get additional points (+.5)
Reminder don't be awful in round.