LRC 2022 2N/1A (best position)
Qualed to the TOC 2020-2021
ye, email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a tech K debater
I assume I will be in a lot of KvK rounds but to make this clear I am not biased for the K team in K-Aff v Policy or Policy v K debates. I will vote for the team that has won the round through the core issues collapsed down to by both teams and at worst my knowledge of the lit might make the explanation threshold lower but not the threshold for instruction.
Top Level (Descending order)
Judge Intervention/Help is the most frustrating thing as a debater so pls pls pls do good judge instruction so I don't have to do work that wasn't done by the 2NR/2AR
Tech >>>> Truth -> saying that a team "dropped X" does not prove the validity or truth of X if a warrant is not extended or explained so give me one or two lines of warrant and an additional two for what that means for the debate.
I feel slimy evaluating your embedded clash. Let me explain: I love K-Tricks and Overviews with offense but there needs to be some clarity to these arguments in the 2NR. If applied properly in the 2NR after being embedded in the 2NC on the line-by-line or at the top then I will gladly evaluate it but if still ambiguous I can't guarantee its importance in my decision.
*will judge death good and impact turn debates*
evidence quality has a high standard in my mind but I am only evaluating arguments extrapolated by the debaters from their cards and not the other way around.
re-highlightings have to be read to be evaluated and don't 'insert graph' me.
Speech, Prep, and Cross-X Time are non-negotiable. Who is speaking during that time is.
Clarity, Eye contact, and emphasis do wonders for speaks.
ins and outs are cool
Mark your own cards and time your own speeches and prep
All of my preferences aren't strict lines to adapt to -- pls debate how you always do. I try to limit my predispositions as each round is premised upon what the debaters want not me but in the end, tabula rasa just doesn't exist -- I am here to evaluate everything including Policy v Policy while I might not be better than the hacks and my partner Joe. Debate is a pedagogical space that can be a multiplicity of things based on the round and I am here to be stimulated by outlandish and interesting rounds that deviate from what is considered normal so do your best at catching my attention!
1 or 2 for you -- read a K-Aff all my career
Direction of the topic or impact-turn it idrc but a counter-interp on FW > no interp
Key to getting my ballot v FW is to have one well-explained piece of offense whether DA or impact turn that is resolved by the counter-interp that either a. outweighs the neg's offense or b. has defense against their offense while also having a robust answer to their defense like SSD & TVA
Aff solvency filters the weight of your offense on FW -- if the neg does good case analysis that limits aff solvency then the 2AR will have an uphill battle by nature on both the case and the FW flow (I look at case before FW)
Key to my ballot v Ks is to win either a. your theory of power and outweighs b. link-turn w alt solvency deck c. perm
ROB & ROJ are useful framing mechanisms for debates (having an understanding of what the ballot does for the aff is preferable) -- don't get me wrong they are self-serving and arbitrary but their concession/technical loss can be damning for the negatives overall strategy
Pls don't fiat the K-Aff (methodologically different from imagining decol and Afro-Futurism)
Don't try to solve an overarching structure but be realistic about the aff does
FW/T-USFG v K-Aff
2 or 3 here -- If you covered the 2AC & 1AR line-by-line accurately I'll give u +0.3
Procedural impacts like fairness and clash are much more convincing than skills and education -- whether or not fairness is impact is determined by the debate. "Intrinsic Good" is two words that aren't a substitute for warranted analysis on why fairness is good in debate.
Key to my ballot v C/I K-Affs is to go for at most two impacts with strong internal link that proves the pedagogical value and potential of debate is maximized under your model. Ideally having defense to the aff's model whether that's the TVA or SSD makes it significantly easier to pull the trigger for the negative in close rounds but you can also go the outweighs route. Any DA (small schools, dogmatism etc.) won on FW serves as a solvency deficit for the affirmative model that bolsters your interp -- severely underutilized in FW debates.
Key to my ballot v Impact Turn K-Affs is to go for at most two impacts with strong internal link that proves the pedagogical value and potential of debate is maximized under your model compared to blanket offense that can't be resolved at all. Winning the TVA or SSD is devastating in these debates as it nulls all the aff's offense.
Additionally, you should tell me what of the AFF's offenses you solve and why the risk of your impact outweighs the small part you might not solve.
Cap K v K-Aff
1 here -- love method v method and materiality
Framing is key in this debate whether impact, materiality, or root cause so both sides need to be both forwarding your own arg and negating the other teams
Can the alt solve the aff? Yes
Does it always? No
Link Specificity filters applicability of Aff Link-Turn so at least try to add link nuance to your generic links
Off v K-Aff