Brandon James ParadigmLast changed 1/19 1:33P EDT
Fayette County HS '16 (GA)
Vanderbilt University '20 (TN)
Yes, put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Basics: Debates must have a winner and a loser, all speakers must participate, and the round should end within the confines set by the tournament directors. Yes you can read framework. Yes you can read a k aff. All of the standard policy arguments are fine. Lastly, I have done very little work on this topic, please keep that in mind.
Framework: Feel free to go for this. With that said, there are a couple things that will make me roll my eyes:
1. Teams reading TVAs that are neither topical, nor versions of the aff.
2. Teams that say “the only ground we get would be (insert form of oppression) good” or similar nonsensical statements against k affs
K Affs: I’m better for teams that have a praxis or advocate for some type of action rather than teams that just give a description of the status quo. I’m better for teams that are extremely clear about their advocacy and relationship to the topic coming out of the 1AC. Being vacuous and opaque during CX is probably going to make me more open to voting on framework rather than the aff. The fact that your opponents have no idea what your aff does isn’t much of an advantage if I have no idea either.
K Negs: Go for it. I’m probably more easily convinced by rhetoric links and fiat links than most judges, but specific links are still preferable. Do not assume that I am already familiar with your kritik or will be able to grasp it with limited explanation.
CX: Is binding…
T: Sure why not?
CPs: I’m good for your basic CPs. The more out-there stuff you start doing, the more amenable I am to theory args.
Theory: Usually a reason to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Go slowly.
PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:
1. I understand that teams have begun to "push the envelope" in PF in various ways. While I have no issue with teams trying out new things, keep in mind that PF, LD, and CX are all structured differently. Not everything that works in one event will work well in another.
2. Good debate requires good research. Any evidence that you cite/reference should be readily available for the other team (or the judge) to look at.
3. You should be clearly extending an entire story. Saying "extend our entire first contention" is not a valid request). Say what specifically I am extending and why.
4. Less is more -- clearly explaining one argument is always better than going for a lot of arguments that have not been well warranted. If you think you're going for too many arguments, you are.