Robbie Levin ParadigmLast changed 11/24 9:49P CDT
Niles North ‘18
Debated in high school for four years at Niles North. I qualified to the TOC twice (2017,18). Have not judged a lot on the arms sales topic so be careful with acronyms. I will try to be as open-minded as possible and I am willing to vote on any argument granted that it is impacted out and explained. Below are some specifics.
Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness.
Politics- have a CP with it because your disad probably sucks. This is very situational so do not be discouraged into reading it especially if its coherent.
Turns case is really important.
Link turns case is awesome.
8 minute 2NC on case and a 1NR on the disad will get you some extra speaker points.
CPs that compete off of the word “should” etc. are not competitive and if the aff answers all definitions and does coherent line by line on theory you will not win.
Advantage CPs and PICs are great.
Will kick the CP unless told not to (if the CP is conditional).
Condo is probably good.
Default is towards competing interpretations, but reasonability is actually really persuasive to me. You must explain the impact to limits, ground, precision, etc. for it to be a persuasive reason to reject their interpretation (likewise with overlimiting and other aff arguments). Impact comparison is good.
Case lists are super important for your interp and theirs. Explain the vision of your topic and what affs exist/what are the core affs.
Please dont go for T if you dont have to. I would much rather watch a debate about the topic. You should really only go for it if the aff is blatantly untopical or you just didnt do a case neg and its your last resort. Its much more fun to watch debates where you go for a PIC, Advantage CP, Aff specific DA, and even politics than a generic T argument.
Make sure your links are not about the world and make sure your alt overcomes those links or you wont win.
Please do line by line and dont put everything in the 2nc overview.
You need to win some substantive link to the aff, their reps, or some assumption intrinsic to the aff. These don't necessarily need to be carded, but should have some logical or contextual explanation of the link. Using lines of the other team's ev is good.
You must either win a mutually exclusive alternative that resolves the harms of the kritik, or framework that obviates that consideration entirely (which is REALLY hard to do). Weighing the aff is probably good.
Perm double bind is raw if contextualized.
Pomo is a no-no.
Not the best for identity debates.
Death and extinction are very bad. Non-negotiable.
If you read one I am probably not the judge for you given every 2nr my senior year consisted of framework. I will still vote for you, but i will have a MUCH higher threshold for aff arguments against framework and the neg usually needs to really mess up to lose these debates. Heres my position - it never made sense to me why non-topical affs are accepted in the debate community. When I competed, I came to debate about the topic not what we should be debating about. Debate is already an extremely hard and intense activity so why make it even more difficult with forcing teams to explain to the judge why other debaters shouldn't cheat. I did zero prep my junior and senior years but I can see why a 2N who cuts a bunch of awesome case negs gets frustrated when he or she shows up to a tournament and has to go for framework three times.
Here are some specifics ---
Debate is a game (for the neg: explain why tho).
Fairness is an impact (for the neg: explain why tho).
The ballot does nothing for grassroots movements (for the neg: explain why tho in 10 seconds max).
The ballot is not key to a certain group's survival (for the neg: you do not have to explain why).
I DO NOT think the government is monolithically racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. so I am very persuaded by TVA(s) and contingency arguments as long as they are explained and the neg gives historical examples of good policy change/progress. Government bad sometimes=/=government bad always, therefore, reject the resolution because government. This is also true for going for Ks on the neg. The reason we are here is to talk and learn about what the government should do.
Dropped arguments=true arguments.
An argument is a claim with reason(s) that claim is true, i.e. "perm do both" with no explanation is not an argument, that is just words.
Tech>Truth in most cases.
Good cards> a lot of cards.
Clarity matters a lot. Slow/efficent debating is better and more fun to watch.
Be yourself. If you're funny, be funny. If you're serious, be serious.