Rachel Solsman

  • Paradigm
  • Record
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 4 October 2022 12:08 PM EDT

Rachel Solsman (she/her)

rachel.solsman@gmail.com

Liberty University, 2018-2022

NDT Qualifier, CEDA All-American

Last Updated: October 4, 2022

SHORT VERSION:

Please add me to the email chain!

I flow everything you say in your speeches straight down. I flow on paper. I generally adhere to "tech over truth." I vote on arguments that were made (with a warrant!) and extended (with a warrant!) in every speech. I will vote on any argument as long as it is explained and impacted out. Anything I say below is not set in stone, you just have to win your argument.

(TOO) LONG VERSION:

My Background:

I was a policy 2A/1N for four years, and did ins and outs (2AC/1AR) on the aff for my last two years of debate. I was a 2N at one tournament for funsies. The 1AR is my favorite speech. I ran policy arguments on the neg, and took the Cap K and case against K affs.

Policy Case Debates:

Please do line-by-line in the 2AC, answering all of the 1NC's arguments in the order in which they made them. If the 2AC says "their impact defense doesn't apply" and moves on without explaining any further, that is not a warrant >:(

I enjoy link turns and impact turns on case, but they unfortunately can become messy. This problem can be solved by clearly signposting between case defense and case turns and by numbering arguments.

Counterplans:

In the block, please very clearly explain to me the mechanism of how the counterplan works, not just "the states do the plan." When the aff is going for a solvency deficit on the counterplan, impact out why that matters and tell me why you solve better. I will not judge kick a counterplan unless explicitly told to do so, with a warrant, in the block and this argument is extended in the 2NR.

If the neg says "anything other than condo is a reason to reject the team" and moves on without explaining any further, that is not a warrant, and affirmative teams should capitalize on that.

Disadvantages:

The more specific a disad is to the aff, the better. I believe in zero risk of a disad. I think internal links are often terribly contrived. The 1AR gets new answers to new block arguments, but does not get to card dump new evidence without any connection to 2AC arguments.

The block should explain why the disad outweighs and turns case, specific to the affirmative's impacts and internal links. The affirmative should explain why case outweighs and turns the disad.

Topicality:

I often find that topicality devolves into teams reading a bunch of definition cards at each other with no argument interaction. This is annoying for me to have to sort through. I want to vote on whichever team did the better debating, not whichever team quoted the most recent court decision. Reasonability makes sense to me, so the negative has to convince me why the affirmative is unreasonable.

Framework:

I personally have never taken framework in a round, but I have listened to (perhaps too many) framework 2NCs and 2NRs. Here are my thoughts (taken with a grain of salt):

Fairness is primarily an internal link and secondarily an impact. Education is good, but you have to win why your education is better than the other team's. Clash is good, but is usually only an internal link. Many affirmative disads on framework are not inherent to the negative's model of debate and also link to the affirmative's model of debate. Negative teams should make their blocks specific to the affirmative. Some 2NRs sound more like they are complaining than they are debating.

Non-Topical Aff's:

I like creative affirmatives that have germane built-in answers to framework and cap. I think the affirmative should pick an advocacy and stick to it. The affirmative needs to explain to me what they do, why their affirmative is needed, and what impacts they solve. If you win framework, you still have to win an impact to the affirmative.

If you win a direct reason to reject the team, you do not have to win anything else.

Krikits:

I am hesitant to vote on totalizing arguments such as "you don't get to weigh the aff" without a coherent and warranted explanation as to why this is true. I prefer links that are specific to the affirmative and not a 1NC shell that could have been read against any team. I enjoy a good floating PIK, but this argument must be present and explained in both the block and the 2NR. If you win your framework, you still have to win a link and an impact.

If you win a direct reason to reject the team, you do not have to win anything else.

Cross-Examinations:

I do not actively flow cross-ex, but I am paying attention and will write down anything important. Cross-ex is binding to the extent that if you said the CP was condo, you cannot make it dispo in the block, but I am willing to accept new articulations as long as they are connected to an argument and are not egregious.

You can be funny, but do not be mean.

Theory:

I believe that substance is more important than theory. That being said, I am willing to vote on any theory argument as long as this argument is explained, has warrants, and has an impact. The negative must provide warranted reasons for why I should not vote them down for reading their specific counterplan / kritik. Just because I am willing to vote for these arguments does not mean that it should be the A strat, but simply that many negative strategies have become particularly cheaty.

Speaker Points:

I am a speaker point fairy and I love to see teams that I have judged win speaker awards. Everyone starts out at a 28.8, and can go either up or down from there, although I generally do not go below 28.5. I award speaker points for making smart and warranted arguments, giving organized (and numbered!) speeches, and speaking clearly.

Miscellaneous

These are my comments for non-policy debate rounds:

1. I allow for off-time road maps, and I think that everyone should give a road map for their speech. It is for the good of all participants and judges that there is an order given for the speeches, and I will not penalize participants for giving an order by taking away part of their speech time.

2. Unless told otherwise, I vote for the team with a) the clearest internal link chain as to how they arrive at their impacts, and b) the team that solves for the biggest impact in the round.

3. Please repeat and explain your definitions and value criterion in every speech so that I can remember and be conscious of all the arguments in the round.

Hills I Will Die On:

1. The "American Boy" Fortnite parody song "Chug Jug With You" is unironically a good song.

2. Colloquially speaking, an intrinsic perm is the plan, plus the counterplan, plus something extra. Nonsense, that is an *extrinsic* perm, because you are including something *outside* of the plan and the counterplan. An intrinsic perm might be something that included part of the plan and/or part of the counterplan.

3. I was a Novice Debater as a freshman, and I saw other freshmen who had been debating for six years winning speaker awards and Varsity tournaments. My high school did not provide any opportunities for me to debate, nor any summer camps, and consequently no debate scholarships at major universities with well-funded programs and a large staff of coaches. Although I was lucky enough to attend a university with a good novice program, many do not have that opportunity. College Policy Debate is inherently classist.

Full Judging Record
Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O Double Samford GT Wake Forest BR Neg Neg 3-0
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O R6 Emory GK Wake Forest AT Aff
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O R5 Kansas HS Houston FC Aff
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O R4 Michigan State GS Missouri State CW Neg
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O R3 Missouri State WA Wyoming LP Neg
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O R2 Emporia State KR Wake Forest BD Neg
JW Patterson Debates hosted by UK C 2022-09-28 CX-O R1 Wake Forest PS Michigan GM Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Tournament at Northwestern C 2022-09-16 Open RD 6 Emory KL George Mason IL Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Tournament at Northwestern C 2022-09-16 Open RD 5 Emory CR Michigan HS Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Tournament at Northwestern C 2022-09-16 Open RD 4 Michigan KS Emory RB Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Tournament at Northwestern C 2022-09-16 Open RD 3 Tony Miklovis Michigan HR Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Tournament at Northwestern C 2022-09-16 Open RD 2 Harvard/Tufts KL Missouri State WW Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Tournament at Northwestern C 2022-09-16 Open RD 1 Pittsburgh RS Emory GK Neg
JV Novice Nationals at West Virginia University C 2022-03-11 Nov R6 James Madison BM George Mason AF Neg
JV Novice Nationals at West Virginia University C 2022-03-11 Nov R3 West Virginia FF James Madison DW Neg
JV Novice Nationals at West Virginia University C 2022-03-11 Nov R1 St Mary's College SMC/James Madison BM George Mason AB Neg
VHSL Debate State Championships HS 2021-04-23 123-LD R7 East Rockingham PS Lightridge TB Aff
VHSL Debate State Championships HS 2021-04-23 5-LD R6 CGS/North Stafford AQ Deep Run MM Neg
VHSL Debate State Championships HS 2021-04-23 6-CX R4 Ocean Lakes AS James Madison SY Neg
VHSL Debate State Championships HS 2021-04-23 6-PF R3 Robinson Secondary DA Charles J. Colgan FB CON
VHSL Debate State Championships HS 2021-04-23 6-PF R2 James River MB Oakton LM CON
VHSL Debate State Championships HS 2021-04-23 6-CX R1 Oscar Frommel Smith JP Kellam QR Neg
Virginia District Tournament HS 2021-03-13 BQ Elim 4 217 214 Aff Aff 3-0
Virginia District Tournament HS 2021-03-13 LD R3 228 238 AFF
Virginia District Tournament HS 2021-03-13 CX R1 241 224 Neg