K - 1
Phil (LD) - 2
LARP - 1/2
T - 2/3
Theory - 4
Tricks - Strike
I'm Avery, you can call me Wilson, Judge, Avery or some combination during the round. I use She/her + they/them
email: email@example.com Put me on the email chain
I debated for 4 years at Jack C Hays.
My biggest influences on debate are Patrick Fox, River Cook, and J.D Sanford. I'm often in agreement with them if something is missing from my paradigm, cross check with theirs.
Debate is a game, but it is an educational game that has a lot of impact on peoples lives. What you say in round matters. Don't knowingly misgender your opponent in round. If it is called out I have no problem dropping you to 25 speaks and would probably be pretty easily convinced to drop you. I'd prefer if you either label your opponent by the speech number (i.e The 1AR dropped x, or the 2NR, conceded y, instead of "he conceded x". This both avoids any chance of messing up pronouns, and makes it very clear to me where on the flow things are happening)
Conflicts: Saint Mary's Hall, Albuquerque Academy AK, Jack C Hays, Unionville, Homestead
DONT READ CARDS THAT ARE WRITTEN BY CURRENT DEBATERS - i will not vote on it
Things I have found out -
Reading "The K is impact justified" against any identity position is bad and don't do that
Explanation of views on debate and args -
ALL ARGS- Every arg in debate is either defense or offense. At the end of the day, the team with the most winning offense usually wins any debate. I evaluate my own and others debate through this view. You need to give me a reason to vote for you, not just reasons to not vote for your opponent.
K- The K is the argument i have the most experience with and read it most of my time in highschool debate. As an overview of the type of Ks im most familiar with, I read Agamben, Puar, OOO, NecroPtx, Bataille, Cybernetics, Death Good/DeepPess and Cap. Those arguments the one I'm the most familiar with, but I can likely follow along with whatever literature you are reading in debate. Ks should have an Alt that solves the impact of the K. What that alt looks like is up to the debaters, but defending an Alt goes a long way in giving me a reason to vote on the K.
K-Affs are cool and chill, just be able to defend your model of debate and have a reason to vote aff.
Don't read Pessimism arguments you don't have jurisdiction on - you know what this means.
Winning framing of the K is a must - you probably don't have much of a chance if you don't win why the K outweighs.
Most permutations on Ks are not explained at all - if there is no explanation you kind of just point at it and go "nah". "Perm do both" isnt an argument, you need warrants. I highly prefer if your perm/perm answers are carded.
Phil- I read a lot of Phil in my time debating. Any neg round I wasn't reading the K I was reading Moral Particularism. Any old dead phil guy you wanna pull out I can likely follow, just be sure to explain the framing and how i look at impacts. You don't need to do an in depth explanation of authors like Hobbes or Locke, but might wanna spend more time if you are reading something like Levinas or Sartre.
LARP/Policy Args- I didn't very often go for these args, but I understand them and have had success with them. Don't be afraid to go for these arguments in front of me
DA - DisAds are always a fun time. There isn't too much to say on what I think of them since there isn't really a lot going on. Have uniqueness. link, internal link, and an impact and we should have no problem.
CP - A CP needs to be competitive in order to be a CP worth voting on. Advantage CPs are what I'm most familiar reading, but there likely isn't a CP you could read I won't understand. Agent CPs are annoying but I'll vote on them if there is an actual impact to them. Consult CPs are going to have a really high threshold and would probably be best to avoid these.
PIC - PICs are one of my favorite args to see even though I didn't read a lot of them. I find these arguments really strategic that put the aff in an awkward position to respond to it. PICs are not cheating and probably won't vote on that theory shell UNLESS the PIC is doing something egregious like "Do the 1AC through executive order after consulting Japan but not x part of the plan"
T- Topicality is an argument I really enjoy seeing and evaluating, sadly, I think most T args are read in a very annoying way.
Competing Interps > Reasonability
Tech > Truth
Fairness is an internal link to education, not an impact by itself
I probably have a lot of strange takes when it comes to topicality/theory. So i'll list some them out here -
1) Nebel is annoying. I don't like the arg but I'll probably vote on it
2) Creating a "Model of debate" from your interp is an uphill battle for me. It probably isn't true. I'd much rather hear an in round abuse story.
3) Cross applying T to case to illustrate an abuse story is very good in front of me.
4) (LD) If you read T and then like 4 offs and 3 Minutes of case I'm going to have a hard time buying in round abuse.
5) RVIs are annoying and are an uphill battle, but i understand their purpose, i will vote on it if you win offense on the shell (i.e, Winning you meet the shell isn't offense, some part of the shell has to be turned and won based on your counterinterp).
There is probably more and will add to the list the more I discover my takes on T debate
Theory- Most theory read for "strategic" purposes in debate I find extremely annoying and won't vote on them (frivolous theory). If theory is your go to strat and is not being done to call out in round abuse I wouldn't pref me. I'm much more inclined to value truth value on the Theory shell over pure tech.
- Most theory is just a reason to DTA and not DTD. If an arg is unfair and you beat it back on theory and still lose to a case turn, you deserved to lose absent the shell. Just cause the debate was hard doesnt mean you should win.
Disclosure - This arg is just true. Disclose your read args people! I don't think people need to disclose in a specific way and probably any form of disclosure on the Wiki is good (OS, first three last three, etc). You need to include screenshots of the wiki with the time somewhere on the page. If either opponent hasn't disclosed read positions 30 minutes before round, that opponent is going to have a rough time winning the theory shell.
Addition Stuff -
98% of Word PIKs are not true and don't solve. Unless there is an actual reason to run it, don't.
Perf Cons are rarely a voting issue - you should be able to defend the aff from every position, otherwise get a better aff
IVIs are often not IVIs and are instead just a turn. Cross-applying your K and saying something is an IVI doesn't make it one. Unless the IVI has an actual reason why it is DTD and not DTA it isnt a voting issue.