Emily Luther ParadigmLast changed 10/25 8:08A MST
Former debater for Gonzaga University.
Debate is meant to be fun and competitive but also a safe space for debaters within it, be kind to one another. I am open to listening to any arguments but will immediately reject any violence within rounds, this includes yelling, name calling, and physical threats. Debate is a game and like any other game there are regulations against violence, therefore if you violate any of these rules you will lose the round and further conversations will occur between myself, tab, and your coaches.
I don't think you can effectively flow on your computer and debate at the same time.
Every CP needs to be competitive and needs a clear net benefit. CP theory is persuasive against CP's that steal the entirety of the AFF.
If read alone you need to win that the impact outweighs the affirmative, your 2nr needs to include impact calc. If read with a cp you need to win that the CP solves the affirmative and clear solvency for the net benefit.
High theory arguments- I am familiar with this literature but will likely need a more comprehensive explanation of links and alts. This means you need to be able to explain your K and how it functions in the specific round. To be more clear, your 3 minute blocked overview will not be substantial enough to win you a round.
Identity arguments- I am very familiar with identity K's however, the same amount of explanation outlined in the High theory k's section should be applied. After 7 years in this activity I am all too aware of the way debate is structured against specific identities and have mostly read gender k's throughout my career. While I believe these arguments are persuasive, you still need links specific to the affirmative or an aff that is specific to the topic.
K affs- A plan text is probably preferable and more than accessible given this years topic. However if you are critiquing the topic at large no plan text is understandable, but you must have a clear advocacy statement in the 1AC. Without an advocacy statement or clear aff action, framework is extremely persuasive.
I think framework is a persuasive argument especially if the affirmative doesn't have an advocacy statement. Your framework should have a TVA or I weigh 100% of the affirmatives impacts against it. I do think that topic education is important and debatability is key.
I default to reasonability, that being said I will vote on potential abuse but make sure to be clear on what standards the affirmative is setting for debate. The immigration topic has opened the doors for a ton of soft left affs, make sure to make any standard arguments specific education of the topic against these affs and answer their specific forms of education. On the aff I will weigh the specific education of the aff against broader education claims.
DON'T READ ABSURD THEORY ARGUMENTS, if there is in round abuse I will vote on theory but am not likely to consider it unless it was completely dropped by the other team. (CP Theory against cheating CP's is super acceptable)