Robbie Levin ParadigmLast changed 8/3 5:45P CST
Niles North ‘18
Debated in high school for four years at Niles North. I qualified to the TOC twice (2017,18). Did not work at a camp or judge debates on the topic yet 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.
Please 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 good if contextualized.
Not good for pomo.
Generally, I care about the flow. If I cannot understand your theory of power, the world, etc. I cannot vote on it. Sort of familiar with the Cap K. Very familiar with framework. Historically, in high school, I was a "policy" team, however, I am not closed off to hearing well thought out/researched planless affs.
I think the most successful 2nrs in front of me would be well thought out topical versions of the aff combined with a clash or topic education impact. The most successful 2ars in front of me involve both careful explanation of why the TVA does not solve and an impact turn to being forced to talk about the resolution, or an impact turn to the impact that the 2nr is going for.
I have not judged many clash debates so if your strategy doesn't follow the examples I listed, don't worry, do whatever you want.
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.