Jamie Davenport ParadigmLast changed 1/12 8:46P EDT
Put me in email chains or feel free to email me some questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com
I'm mainly writing this for novice debaters to read so if you're varsity don't get mad about how some of these should be givens or if I don't get in depth - just ask me before the round - I try to cover most things, though.
This paradigm is mainly geared towards Lincoln-Douglas, I'll update it for policy as the need arises.
ABOUT ME [I'M SURE YOU CARE]
I'm currently coaching our novices on the Samford University CX squad. I'm also, starting in January, the LD coach at the Altamont School, so I'm more in the loop than I used to be. I teach at the Samford Debate Institute - typically found in the LD lab. In high school, I was the Lincoln-Douglas debate captain at Grovetown for two years and I debated for three. There, I competed on the national and state circuit alongside going to LD and Policy camps, so I was exposed to a pretty comprehensive bit of traditional and progressive debate when I was in HS.
Now, I do the things with Policy and I like it - I'm comfortable with both formats.
Tip: If you think you're losing the round but still want to have high speaks (or just for fun), I will boost speaks for bad (as in not good - unethical jokes will mean a drop in speaks at least) jokes and conspiracy theories. This doesn't mean you will win the round - just improve speaks.
I am also not opposed to things like snacks. No promises that it will help you at all in the debate, but I will take them. Note: I am a vegetarian and transitioning to a vegan diet. Don't bring me hot dogs.
I also do not care how you present yourself in terms of like attire or sitting or whatever.
The challenge: Whoever first correctly uses the phrase "it be like that sometimes" in their speech gets a .1 boost in speaks
Follow @SUDebate on Insta if you're cool
GENERAL LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I'm cool with all experience levels and I'm mainly out to help everyone improve the debate community.
Some pointers to get me on your side:
- Don't be rude - which includes: racism, sexism, elitism, etc. Also don't just yell - make your words smarter not louder. I could very easily be convinced to vote someone down for excluding behavior in the debate sphere because I am personally invested in these types of arguments and think they have huge implication in debate. If the transgression is severe enough, I may make that decision without your opponent having to make the arg and I may report you to the tournament director.
- Road maps and signposting are A+! If you don't know what that is, ask me before the round.
- Don't be overly aggressive in Cross-ex - especially if you're just trying to scare your opponent.
- If I make a weird face I'm either confused by what you mean or I think it's a bad idea - make the call to elaborate or abandon the argument.
- If I start nodding I'm probably grooving on what you have to say - pursue that argument.
- Don't assume I'm stupid - If you want to make an argument, make it. If you explain it well enough then you can overcome any stupidity I may or may not have 😄. (And chances are I've already noticed it).
- Please time your speeches. I'll also time but it's a good habit to have.
- I will not count something if you don't say it. I'm tryna be as Tabula Rasa as possible, so please make the argument.
I dabbled in policy-type LD while I was in high school - I was closer to progressive debate than not. As mentioned, I am also now debating Policy so I'm pretty open to most "progressive" arguments: Kritiks are bae, counterplans are cool, disads are fine, plantext affs are weird/maybe don't belong in LD, I think Topicality doesn't necessarily have to be run as a shell, don't try to tell me the neg can perm because they can't, ask about anything else.
I've seen some... interesting.. arguments that hinged on like multiple-world theory, trivialism, etc. I think that these are intriguing and I think I have an alright grasp on how they hash out SO if you want to run it (and actually can run it), I'm cool with these types of arguments. You're going to have to win abuse args but you can always try. Typically you can run whatever you want in front of me - I like to learn new things.
Also because of my personal style and my exposure to CX [hah] I can handle speed - I discourage all out spreading because LD is very analytical and I would like to hear what explanations you have. If you choose to spread please email at least me, but preferrably your oppenent as well, the doc as that is regular practice for Policy debate, which you're clearly trying to embrace.
I will probably automatically vote you down for card clipping. I've done it before and am fine to do it again. Don't do it. I'll also report you to the tournament director, who will likely tell your coach. Thanks!
I don't flow cross-ex. If it's important, bring it up in a speech
ACTUAL POLICY DEBATE
My LD prefs should generally apply here. I'm cool with Kritiks (on either side), but if it's a more niche arg I'm probably not up-to-date on the literature. Don't try to run these if you don't know what you're talking about - it'll hurt your Ethos. (This mainly applies to K-Affs or 1-off Negs lol). I think condo bad is uber valid when you get to the 4+ area (I could be convinced of 3, depending on the round).
For the HS topic: I am not super up to date on this topic and don't plan to be. As mentioned, I worked at the Samford Debate Institute and ENDI over the summer, so I was somewhat exposed to the topic there. However, I was isolated in my lil LD lab or the dorms, so I didn't get into all the DA and T and case lectures specific to this topic. You don't have a topic-specific knowledge base to take for granted here. Because I will not read all the topic lit before your debates, if you're a policy team - make good choices and elaborations. Also down to watch K vs K debates or K v FW debates.
MISC - MAYBE REFERENCE?
I'm updating this as debaters do things that frustrate/confuse me. Please do neither of these things.
- I don't particularly love T/theory debates, so if this is your strat make sure you're explaining things really well. Like way more than you think you should.
-- On theory, I default to a fairness k2 education paradigm unless you tell me to do something else and give reasons why. Also try winning the fairness interp.
- I seriously don't get RVIs and don't like them. I think they're especially silly in a constructive. A debater asked me about an RVI in semi's at a tournament, I said I just literally didn't get it and the other judges concurred. Be the change. Don't do an RVI.
- Please don't read an identity k in front of me (while not being a member of that identity) and ALSO read a DA/link that your opponent is speaking for others by advocating X plan. This happens WAY too often and it's pretty ridiculous. Find a K and/or authors that don't make this yikes if you really want to go for it. Similarly, if your opponent does these shenanigans, I'm really open to the arg that they link and I should probably vote them down
I'll update this more as time progresses.