Molly Martin ParadigmLast changed 7/22 2:53P PDT
Molly Martin - they/them - July 20
Online Debate Notes - Subject to change and additions as we all learn the ropes, subject to override by tournament policies:
- Please do not use Zoom to send files. Keep the email chain alive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Recording requires consent from all parties and judges. If someone else does not consent, I will withdraw mine as well.
- I think it is wrong for me to assume that every debater is in a situation where they can have their webcams on for the entire debate. I will not mandate that you always have your camera on - I would encourage you to do so if you can, at the very least for your speeches and CX - visual communication is so important for online debates. At the very least, please check in with a webcam on.
- I want to assume that you will not use that ^ to cheat or steal prep. Please don't let me down.
- Utilize Zoom reactions (Thumbs up) to let everyone know you're ready if you do not use your webcam.
- Flash analytics in constructives. Zoom inevitably cuts out. This should not be a reason someone loses a debate.
- Talking over people in CX is horrid to listen to in an online setting. Avoid it as much as you can.
Hi! I’m Molly. I debated for C.K. McClatchy, I now debate for Gonzaga University, I coach for Lewis and Clark High School.
Email Chain: Yes, email@example.com
- Life is hectic lately. Practice goodwill and generosity to your opponents, your partner, and with yourself. We are people before we are debaters. If someone asks for accommodations, try your best to meet them.
- Do what you’re best at and I’ll listen. If you’re attempting to decide where to put me on your pref sheet, here are my predispositions:
- I’m not well versed in high theory. I’ll happily listen to it, but you’ll need more explanation here.
- I have more experience with policy arguments than K arguments, but I find that I vote for both equally.
I have accessibility issues with processing sound - this is made worse for me in online debates - you can go as fast as you want so long as you're clear. Slightly slow down for analytics, signpost, and speak loud.
Write my ballot - frame the round, impact things out, do evidence comparison
Don’t steal prep.
Don’t be a bad community member (racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist). If you do, I will almost certainly talk to your coaches. Most people know this, but if I hadn’t seen it in debates, it would not have to be here.
Inserting re-highlighting? Extra points for doing this effectively but you have to read what you highlighted. Same with charts. I’m not doing that work of interpreting it for you.
- Line by line > your 4 minute long overview
- You need to extend and win an alternative unless you really impact out an independent DA to the aff
- Contextualize your links; I know the state is bad, but if that's all you got, it probably won't go well for you.
- Extra points if you can garner links from CX/their pieces of evidence.
- I default to competing interpretations.
- T is about what debates on this topic should look like. That means you don’t have to win in-round abuse with me, so long as you explain what your model of debate looks like under your interp.
- That ^ also means that 2AC arguments like “it was on the wiki” or “you read 5 off, you have ground” don’t fly with me.
- No RVIs.
- I feel like this doesn’t need its own section, you should do it.
- Impact turn debates need qualified ev - I won't be happy listening to a warming good debate if your author is from 4Chan and thinks the earth is flat
- Good link stories are key. This means your links should be contextual, or you just need to do the work in terms of spin.
- Make sure you’re making and engaging with turns case arguments.
- I'll vote on low risk if you win it (Is this an unpopular opinion?)
- Specific net benefits are preferred; Affs should have specific solvency deficits.
- Judge kick needs a justification.
Do your thing! I won't automatically vote against you if you're not in the direction of the topic, but I think being in the direction of the topic is a good thing.
Identity affs: this space is what you make it. I understand debate as a survival strategy and I respect that, but you need to tell me why that’s a reason i should vote for your strategy.
- I think my only preference here is I prefer debates over portable skills/deliberation over fairness/limits/ground. Better judge for the former than the latter, but will need extra extrapolation on fairness being an impact.
- Never my favorite decisions to make, but if it’s a dropped violation that you impact out, all power to you.
- Unless things get real weird and there is nothing else to vote on, I will not vote on theory if it is not the entirety of the 2NR or the 2AR. If you choose to go for theory, you have to go all in.
- You need an interpretation and a substantive impact. How do you better access the internal link to insert impact here
- There’s certain theory violations that I don't feel like voting on ever (Vague alts, no neg fiat).
Satirical arguments – Fine by me, still needs to be impacted out. Don’t be cringey or rude.
My debates always run late because of people leaving the room. Obviously I'm not gonna tell you what to do, because you are an autonomous human being, but be cognizant that there is a decision countdown clock that I see on Tabroom that makes me very nervous.
Have fun! Regardless of if you win or lose, there is something to be taken away from every debate; always strive to learn from debates, because your skills leave the round with you. As an ex-high school debater who got a total of no bids, I can tell you now with full certainty - bids don't actually matter, and your bids or lack thereof do not determine your value and worth - debate is about what you bring to the debate community and what you can get out of it. Make sure it's positive, both for yourself and for other people.
If you have any questions about college debate or are interested in debating for Gonzaga (Go Zags!), please hit me up! I would love to talk to you about CPD.