Molly Martin ParadigmLast changed 8/22 10:57P PDT
if you're gonna read any part of this paradigm, read the tldr, basic info, and the accessibility portions.
there's very little you can't run in front of me. as long as you have warrants and impacts and actually make arguments you should be set. i love all forms of argumentation and have dealt with/ran most of em.
email chain please!!! firstname.lastname@example.org
- they/them (gettin misgendered makes me sad, thanks in advance for not doin that)
- ck mcclatchy 18
- gonzaga 22 (21? idk we'll see)
- i've ran just about everything but high theory - i've gone for queer pessimism just as much as i've defended heg good
- tech over truth 99% of the time
- if there's ever an issue of accessibility you want me to be aware of, message me or talk to me before the round!
- i am disabled. i can deal with speed, but clarity over speed. please speak loud. if i can't hear you, i'll let you know. if it continues to be a problem, i'll just stop flowing.
- arguments based in music: please send me the text of the song, external audio can be hard for me
what am i looking for in a debate?
- write my ballot. frame the round for me.
- impact calculus! explain why your argument matters/why it outweighs. i'll vote on dropped arguments, but you have to impact out why that dropped argument matters and why it is a reason i should vote for you
- signposting and organization
- quality evidence and quality explanation of said evidence. i’ll read evidence at the round if i’m unsure of how to evaluate it, but if you explain it well enough, i won’t have to! contextualization is key.
- make the round interesting for me -- whether it be jokes, an engaging and enticing cx, or just a really damn good speech, if i'm excited about the round, i'll reward you with higher speaks!
what am i not looking for in a debate?
- clipping = with sufficient proof, huge speaks dock and a loss. accusations need to have proof, but i won't put that solely on the debaters. if i suspect anything for any reason i'll follow the doc.
- stealing prep = it makes me unhappy
- homophobic/racist/sexist/transphobic rhetoric = lowest speaks i can give you, a loss, and i'll probably (definitely) have a word with your coach . we are people before we are debaters, treat people with respect. if someone asks for accommodations, do your best to meet them.
- don't be rude. there's no good justification to treat people like they're lesser. i'm really expressive. if you're doing something i hate, it'll be obvious. change your behavior, apologize if you say something mean, or better yet, try and always be kind.
kritiks: always fine, but be aware:
1. high theory debaters: i probably don't know about your old, dead white men. this does not mean don't run those args, it means if you do, i need very specific explanations.
2. ks i’m most familiar with: queerness, legalism/biopower, colonialism, feminism. just because it's something i know does not mean the threshold for explanation is any lower.
- line by line > your 4 minute long overview
- you need to extend and win an alternative unless you rlly 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.
- i’m not persuaded by arguments that conclude “we’re topical because you read a counterplan and case cards, etc.”
- i don't think the neg needs to win in round abuse, but point it out if something happens - t is about a model for debate, not individual rounds
- i default to competing interps.
case debates: please
- 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.
- make sure you’re making and engaging with turns case arguments.
- i'll vote on low risk if you win it (unpopular opinion? idk)
- specific net benefits are preferred
- you don't get judge kick unless you tell me i can kick it
k affs: do your thing. i still don't know your old, dead, white men. i would like it if you were in the direction of the topic, but won't automatically vote against you if you're not.
- don’t be an a-hole answering k affs, especially those that center identity. you can be responsive without undermining your opponents personally.
identity affs: this space is what you make it. i understand debate being a home and 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.
- deliberation impacts are my fav - how can we use these skills from debate outside of debate?
- i’ll listen to the fairness/limits/ground debate, though; if that is more your style, make sure in-depth explanation makes it into the 2nr.
– in all honesty i won't be happy if it comes down to theory in most cases, but i can understand situations where it's your only option
- i feel like a lot of theory debates are two ships passing in the night - clash is necessary here
- if theory is dropped, it’s an easy ballot so long as you have a substantive impact. with that being said, there's certain theory violations that i don't feel like voting on ever (vague alts, no neg fiat)
- condo: good to an extent. aff can define that extent, but running condo with 1 conditional advocacy? nah
satirical arguments - fine, good times, still need to be impacted out.
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 tried really hard to be uber competitive, 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.