Lauren Ernst Paradigm

Last changed 11/1 2:40P CDT

I debated for four years at Iowa City West and I'm a sophomore at Michigan (not debating). I intend on double majoring in psychology and PPE (politics, philosophy and economics).

Please put me on the email chain: laurenernst00@gmail.com

Ask questions if you want clarification or if I forgot anything :)

important: I have very limited topic knowledge. You gotta do some work for me.

Last updated: October 2019

TL;DR --

I debated primarily policy arguments throughout high school and if you rely on jargon my brain will shut off and you will be just as frustrated with me as I am with you. However, I'll be open to whatever you want to debate (except for obviously wrong things e.g. racism/sexism good), just be aware I might need additional explanation. In general, case-specific everything is wonderful.

Also, debate is supposed to be fun, not stressful. Have fun, be nice and if you make me laugh or excited your speaks will increase. Also, if you get excited about an argument, I'll get excited because smiles and laughter are contagious.

IF I CANNOT GIVE A COHERENT RFD THEN YOU DID NOT EXPLAIN IT WELL ENOUGH FOR ME TO VOTE ON IT. TAKE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENT TO ME INSTEAD OF READING LOTS OF SMALL ARGUMENTS WITH NO WARRANTS.

Generic stuff --

I will do my best to be open if you're doing your best to communicate. Debate isn't about who can speak the fastest, it's about who can EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE ARGUMENTS the best. I love watching people do what they love and I love to learn, so feel free to do whatever as long as you're confident you can communicate your argument to me and teach me something.

I will not make arguments for you, something has to be on the flow and I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Also along those lines, dropped = true, but you have to tell me WHY IT MATTERS that they dropped it. Otherwise, I'll be frustrated.

If you make any argument vaguely related to psychology, economics, politics or philosophy, there will be at least a small part of me that gets really excited, especially if it's psychology related.

My high school experience would land me squarely in the "policy" camp, but y'know I'm here to watch you do something you love so don't stop doing what you love because you're afraid I'll drop you on principle. I read big stick policy affs my first two years in high school, then ended with my senior year reading a soft left aff I cared about and going for the cap k consistently (was a 2A, switched to 2N).

T --

I default to competing interpretations, usually because reasonability is incorrectly debated most of the time. Reasonability applies to the definition, not the aff. Please go slower on T. Don't spread it like you would a card because I'll miss half your standards and everyone will be sad at the end of the debate.

K --

I'm most comfortable with cap and security. Pomo usually makes me want to cry because it relies so heavily on jargon. If you can successfully explain your kritik with minimal (preferably zero) jargon, I am 110% here for that. However, I am not heavily versed in the lit. Same goes for identity Ks. I love a good identity debate, but I'll need additional explanation because I do not read the lit.

The alt better solve the impacts of the kritik. Otherwise, everyone will be sad.

Also, it'll be difficult to convince me to exclude either the aff or the k.

If I haven't made it clear enough, I hate jargon. It's a crutch and to me, usually functions as words to freak the other team out. My main issue with kritiks is that the theories behind them are usually deployed poorly in debate and come off as an attempt to confuse or intimidate the other team. I am intrigued by the theories behind most Ks, so please explain your argument to me, I'd love to learn more about your theories.

Planless affs --

Look, I went for f/w consistently. I can be persuaded either way, but everyone has to do explanation otherwise I'm going to be sad. Specific analysis of each other's arguments makes the debate better for everyone. I hope your aff has a plan. I won't reject you outright but if you have two options and you have a more policy version of your aff, read it. Please. If you don't have a policy version of your aff or you're just not comfortable with policy, that's okay, read your K aff, just please avoid jargon. Please. For the love of debate and coherent RFDs please explain things.

Aff, labeling your DAs is nice and all but Sarcophagus DA makes me sad. That tells me not a lot about the DA and honestly, you probably could have made the same argument without labeling it as a DA. Also, if you show that there is a role for the neg in your world of debate, I am much more likely to vote for you.

Rejecting debate altogether will probably make me sad.

Neg, fairness is probably not an impact in of itself, but an internal link to other stuff. Make your analysis specific to the aff, don't just read the blocked out version that your coach gave you.

Topic-specific planless affs actually make me really happy. There was an identity team that I debated that had a beautiful model minority aff without a plan and I loved that debate.

CP --

I love me a smart counterplan. Be it a PIC or winged in the 1NC because of a card in the 1AC, if it's smart and kinda sneaky I love it. However, don't be awful and read a lot of one-liner counterplans because that ends up being a waste of paper which will make me sad because I like trees. Plus that sucks as a 2A and I'll listen to theory.

Process counterplans are cool IF THE PROCESS MAKES SENSE IN CONTEXT OF THE AFF. Throwing a process CP at an aff and hoping it sticks is bad. I'll listen to process theory, but it usually isn't a reason to reject the team. These just get kinda tricky so you'd better have a darn good explanation for competition and a legitimate net benefit that isn't contrived and just kinda awful *insert snarky GBN comment here*

2 advocacies, you're fine. 3, you're probably still okay. 4 is pushing it, but if you have a really good reason you might be able to pull it off.

Disclaimer, since I was a 2A for a while, I am sympathetic to theory. However, I usually default to reject the argument, not the team (add reasoning for this please please please).

DA --

The more case-specific the better. I am a fan of storytelling and if you can coherently explain link chains and internal links and have it sound more plausible than some DAs sound, I'll be happy.

I feel like I have to mention politics DAs at some point in this. I love politics but gut check yourself, don't pick your most obscure scenario and hope the other team doesn't have answers because if it's that obscure, a good 2A will wipe the floor with you with just analytics.

Also, case turns are good. Really good.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 NCX Quarte ADL CC Glenbrook South SM Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 NCX Octos Niles West IM North Broward Prep RN Aff Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 VCX R7 Dowling Catholic WH Niles West PT Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 VCX R6 Glenbrook South CL New Trier LS Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 NCX R5 Pine Crest GY Glenbrook South WW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 VCX R4 Whitney Young MM New Trier HM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 VCX R3 Montgomery Bell PS Glenbrook South KD Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 VCX R2 Okemos SK Iowa City CW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 VCX R1 Mamaroneck LR Glenbrook South MJ Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Double Univ Of Chicago Lab LP Glenbrook South GS Neg Neg on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R7 Montgomery Bell KK Univ Of Chicago Lab LP Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R6 Niles West CW Edgemont BP Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R5 Westminster VK Lincoln Park MM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R4 Alpharetta HS SJ Lindblom Math and Science DS Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R3 Mamaroneck SR Glenbrook South MJ Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R2 New Trier RS Montgomery Bell BH Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R1 Solorio MG Traverse City Central HF Aff