Duncan Donahue ParadigmLast changed 8/2 9:13A EDT
Duncan Donahue - Assistant Debate Coach at H.H. Dow High School
Debated - 14-18 for H.H. Dow (Policy), Currently debating for the University of Notre Dame (NPDA)
email: email@example.com (ADD ME TO THE CHAIN PLEASE)
- I lean toward kritikal debate over traditional policy, but my preferences don't determine my ballot - you do you
- my experience and comfort zone is soft left + k affs, t, fw, and ks.
- the framework/framing flow will decide what I'm doing in the back of the room, so don't overlook it for the minutiae of the line-by-line on other flows
- tech over truth, but every arg has to be impacted and warranted
- affs need to defend something other than the status quo but don't necessarily need to have a plan text or advocacy statement.
- overall, explain what your arguments are and why they mean I should vote for you. see below for little specifics about how tend to evaluate different types of arguments.
- Be nice and have fun! Being rude/offensive will drop your speaker points quick, regardless of whether it's in a speech or not.
- Speed: Speed is great as long as you are clear.
- Warranted Claims: an argument isn't complete unless there's a warrant for the claim. I won't vote on unsupported blippy arguments even if they're conceded.
- Offensive Arguments: Offensive arguments like "Oppression Good" will sharply drop speaker points. Offensive/hurtful language directed at another debater will result in a loss, a zero in speaker points, and me contacting the offending team's coach.
- Post-rounding: it'll drop your speaks.
- Cheating: one warning for stealing prep before I dock speaks. Proven clipping will result in being dropped and zeros.
Case - Extend it every aff speech. When the story of the aff is missing, I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to be voting for.
T - I love T, but because of that I have a high threshold for evaluating T. I favor tech over truth for T, but you’re interp and violations should at least make logical sense. I default to T being apriori unless the affirmative makes args to the contrary.
Theory - isolate how the other team’s specific actions warrant me punishing them with a loss or with dropping a certain argument. Generic claims of fairness and education won't get very far unless you contextualize specifically to the round. Also, don’t spread theory blocks please :)
CPs - no problem with CP debates but the solvency and net benefit debate need to be flushed out. I don't judge-kick CPs so if it's in the 2nr, the neg doesn't get the status quo. I will stick the negative to the exact plan text in the 1nc just like I will stick the aff to their plan text in the 1ac.
DAs - I think a lot of traditional DA link chains and impacts are kind of comical outside of the lens of debate, but so are a lot of advantages so don't expect me to believe the plan 100% causes nuclear annihilation, just weigh the probability of your impacts relative to the aff. Politics DAs are kind of disgusting.
Ks - love them, especially creative and specific ones. Make sure you’re explaining exactly what your alt is/does, including who does it and what my role as a judge is in participating/endorsing/affirming etc. I am most familiar with Cap/Neolib (especially Giroux, Marx, and Zapatismo), Critical Pedagogy, Security, Foucault, Postcolonialism, Posthumanism, and Anthro. Any high theory will need more explaining.
K affs/FW - Love them. Hate them when they're soulless and unexplained. I staunchly believe the affirmative should know their advocacy in and out and not just reread tags. Sure, K affs can just impact turn FW, but the best answers to FW usually go a bit further. It's gonna be hard for the neg to win any sort of "prior question" or apriori args in front of me and I'll probably lean toward weighing impacts on FW so tell me how to weigh them!
Speaker Point Ranges
27.6 to 27.9 needs work
28.0 to 28.3 acceptable
28.4 to 28.7 good
28.8 to 29 should probably get high speaker placement, maybe an award
29.1-29.4 speaker award
29.5+ top speaker contender