Michael Hauschildt ParadigmLast changed 10/8 6:36P CDT
GTA at Kansas State, go Wildcats. University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) 2020, go Roos. 2x ndt qualifier
Short version: I believe my paradigm should never make you shy or discourage you from reading any argument - debate is what debaters make it, and should not be subject to whoever got assigned to evaluate the round. Tell me topical counterplans are cheating, go for the fiat double bind, go for a-spec vs a K aff, just make sure you do it well. I much rather prefer watching 2 teams execute their best arguments rather than arguments I am most familiar with or ideologically agree with.
Not a ton of detailed background knowledge on the topic, clarify acronyms (yes, I know what NATO is)
email: mdhauschildt @ gmail
**A smart and/or true argument is always better than a bad card. Tagline extensions are useless to me and warrants for cards should always come out before the 2N/AR**
Kritiks - I like to hear them executed well - just like any argument, if you cannot do it well I wouldn't recommend reading it. Make your impacts interact with the aff impacts and you will be much happier with my rfd (the inverse is true for affirmatives answering the kritik, impact specificity is still important)
I tend to believe the negative should be able to read a kritik, 2AC framework interpretations that exclude kritiks entirely feel wrong to me, but that does not mean you don't get fiat or the ability to weigh the 1AC impacts.
K v K specifically: in my experience this comes down to impact comparison - even in k v k rounds you I am still thinking about a 'framework' I use to evaluate offense ie in round education, activism training, competing performances etc and I encourage you to forward a reason why I should evaluate it a certain way. If one team has a larger, existential impact (cap teams going for climate change impacts, for example), I think it would be in your best interest to explain why your impact matters more
Topicality (and theory) - I like very nuanced and specific Topicality arguments - a unique interpretation and well argued standards is one of my favorite debates. A few caveats - I think that the education of the aff can overcome the importance of being topical (in many instances, that is very true) but I know the inverse can be true. I have varied understandings of the argument 'reasonability' so you should contextualize it.
an aspec theory shell less than like 20 words will reduce your speaks, as will RVI's
Framework (against K affs most likely) - most of the analysis above is true for framework as well. Between fairness and education, if both were argued exceptionally, I think education is better. In most debates, I have been more often persuaded by fairness. Please close loose ends so I dont have to. "Clash is the most unique educational aspect of debate" is something I tend to believe is true but what types of clash occur probably matters more. Fairness might be an independent impact, tell me why or why not.
DA - you do you, make sure the story is clear enough and that you leverage your impact and you'll be good. ptx is silly but honestly I'll hack for you if you did it well, I've noticed these debates are mostly spin which covers up for the abhorrent evidence quality
CP - most CP's are theoretically fine on face but I can always be convinced otherwise. Create competition as you may. My opinions are not very favorable to the negative, ie conditions, consult and international fiat are all probably illegit in my book but that just means you should be willing to have that debate, not that they are off-limits by any means. I read PIC's and UQ CP's quite a bit, I appreciate the creative ones, with or without solvency advocates. I find myself most confused when the neg reads a 5+ plank advantage CP, so be more thorough with solvency explanation if this is your strategy. No real opinion on the validity of CP's without advocates or evidence.
conditionality - again make it what you will but I do have a preference to non contradicting advocacies and discourse. I have a preference for not having 3+ condo in the 1NC but I feel like I don't vote on conditionality easily imo. I'll probably groan if you say more than 6 off but dont take it personally.
K affs - Do it well and you'll be in just as fine of a position as you would have otherwise. Keep in mind the pitfalls many kritikal affs fall in - too long overviews and assuming they solve their impact. Not sure how I feel about perms in a method debate, you should tell me how you feel though.
Evidence quality - I think a lot of the evidence we read is absolutely terrible, I think power/mis-tagging cards is a form of academic dishonesty. I encourage everyone to take a second and actually read the cards being used in rounds. Good spin to me means explaining the implications of a card but still sticking to the warrants that the card has. I covered this above, but I truly think some teams are better off by just making smart arguments instead of lying about the cards they read - your opinion is also valuable!
misc/speaker point things
baseline 28.5, 28.9 - If you debated like this every round at a major tournament I would expect you to be in 2x octos, 29.2 - " " octas, 29.4 - quarters and so on. Smaller tournaments probably have a small bump, feel like thats inevitable from my experience.
I naturally look disgruntled and tired, if it looks like I am disinterested or upset in the round, that is likely just my face.
Dont steal prep
(on the varsity level) clipping cards = auto loss and 0 speaks for the one who clipped.
Willing (often eager) to call for T interps and plan/counterplan texts.
No you cannot link turn a DA in the 2ac then impact turn it in the 1AR unless the impact turn is to a new impact in the block
tend to think CP amendments or text changes should be in the 2NC, but yes the 2NC gets new off case or impact turns, its a constructive
If it matters my most familiar debates are marx v k-affs, security/cap or leftish counterplans/PICs vs policy affs - I was a 2N, read a plan text in 90% of my aff debates, both soft-left (anti-neolib), and big stick, have a soft spot for the 1AR but I really don't give them much leniency
not the judge you want to read nuclear war good impact turns in front of. prolif good, sure. spark/first strike good, it is in your best interest to wait for another round. same most all death/suffering good arguments
low threshold for being called out for reading evidence from white nationalist publications like breitbart or dailywire or national review - I think policy teams should make criticisms of their opponents' ideologically suspect evidence more often
Also if you aren't having fun then I am probably not having fun, so have fun or else