Clare McGraw ParadigmLast changed 11/6 4:59P EDT
Juan Diego Catholic H.S. '17 (2A/1N)
University of Michigan '21 (both speaking positions)
Please put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Top Level Note - 2018 H.S. Topic: I have not judged many rounds on this topic so clarification of acronyms would be helpful.
1. Kritiks (Neg)
I am most familiar with feminist literature/arguments (particularly rage) and ran a one off strategy almost all through H.S. You should have multiple links specific to the plan and make turns case arguments. Please explain your alt and how it implicates the impacts of the aff. I am less familiar/have very limited knowledge of high theory/postmodern literature so those debates may require a bit more explanation. If you go for a state link, it needs to be contextualized to the aff - or else the neg is very susceptible to step in the right direction or aff reforms the state arguments.
As far as framework vs a neg k goes, I will almost always allow the aff to weigh their impacts, but am open to arguments about why education or scholarship should come first.
The permutation is the best aff strategy against most Ks, in my opinion. Outline clear NB's to the perm that the alt can't solve.
2. K Affs/FW
I don't think you necessarily need to defend the state, but teams should certainly attempt to relate to the resolution and be in the direction of the topic. Anti-topical affs or affs that plausibly do not have anything to do with the resolution are a hard sell for me and are certainly susceptible to FW. If the negative team reads FW, the 2AC should make specific we meet and counterinterpretation arguments as well as impact turns.
I think FW is a fair and oftentimes effective strategy against affs without a plan but I enjoy case-specific k's and innovative disads/case turns as well. If you decide to read FW, the negative should make arguments about how a TVA/working through the state can solve the impacts of the aff/the impact turns the aff has read to FW. I also think internal link turns (how FW solves the aff better) are persuasive. I think fairness and predictability impacts against most K affs (particularly identity affs) tend to be susceptible to strong impact turns and maybe aren't your best option.
I really like nuanced, external impacts or internal link turns for FW. These debates can be really boring/repetitive sometimes and when people explain their arguments in new and fun ways, it will be rewarded. I love case debating against K affs. Presumption/ballot args are always a good idea and are usually pretty powerful.
In the final rebuttals in a FW debate, both teams should outline what their respective models of debate look like and have net benefits to each model that the opposing team's model can't solve.
I default to giving K affs a perm unless persuaded otherwise.
I love good T debates. If an aff is blatantly untopical do not be afraid to go for it. That being said, I am very open to reasonability arguments for the aff. Negative teams should identify the ground they lose and clearly impact out their violation starting in the block.
As far as theory goes, I don't necessarily have any preexisting biases. Please slow down and contextualize your theory arguments, this will get you much farther than speeding through blocks.
4. Case Debate
Great case debates are something I really enjoy. 2AC answers to case arguments should be clearly delineated, maybe even slow down a little bit instead of speeding through analytics. I enjoy on-case disads/case turns that are blown up in the block. Advantage CP + case turn debates are super fun.
Make clear, smart turns case arguments. If your disad is specific to the aff or not something a lot of people read, be sure to explain it in the block.
Specific CPs/PICS are a great. Just be clear about explaining what they do in CX/the block. Affs, oftentimes the perm is your best option.
6. Speaking Style/Points
I enjoy speakers who write my ballot in the final rebuttals. Please do this. Good, precise CX's with a point will improve your points. Be strategic and take risks if you think they will pay off. Violent/overly aggressive rhetoric and behavior will not be tolerated, please make debate a welcoming space.
You can't insert rehighlighted evidence. Please read it. Graphs, however, are insertable and can make good cards.
I don't judge too frequently -- this means you might need to slow down a little bit. I probably won't be able to write down every single thing you say, so if something is important, mark it as so.
Be funny! Debates can be pretty boring sometimes but charismatic and enjoyable debaters change that.
Overall, do what you do best.
Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round. Also, feel free to ask me anything about the Michigan debate team/college debate in general!