Kenan Anderson ParadigmLast changed 11/9 2:46P CST
NOTE FOR MINNEAPPLE: I have not been judging on the circuit at all this year before this and have mostly been working with novices/Middle schoolers so y’all need to SLOW DOWN A LOT (LIKE 60% SPEED). I WILL NOT FLOW OFF OF SPEECH DOCS OR GO BACK TO FILL THEM IN. I’ll say SLOW 2-3 times but will not vote off arguments I didn’t catch or did not understand because they were too fast.
MN Locals – 1
LARP – 1
Ks – 2/3 (high theory def 3)
Non-topical – 3/4 (high theory def 4)
Theory – 3 (I’m down with T-framework and real abuse)
Tricks - 5
LOGISTICS: start an email chain plz. firstname.lastname@example.org also if you're one of those hip new kids who read DAs on case DON'T it's confusing and bad for both of us. Anything with a link chain should be an off case
Short Version: Go like 60% speed, I flow on paper and do not backflow or look at speech docs unless their is an evidence challenge. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or don't catch if you're going too fast. so high theory or complex ID politics K's are risky and if you read them EXPLAIN it basic terms. LARP was mostly my thing. Not a fan of petty theory. I think Non-T affs tend to need better explanations for why they should win. I don't know a lot about phil.
Long Version: I debated for 4 years at Apple Valley highschool in Minnesota. I debated on the circuit my last three years and qualified to TOC my senior year. I'm now a student at NYU.
CX: CX is important, but I think I have a lower tolerance for shady, dodgy, or annoying CX habits. 9/10 debaters know what their opponent is trying to ask and just dodge the question. That doesn't impress me as a judge and will earn you low speaks. Don't hide in CX answer questions.
Speed: I debated on the circuit but I was HORRIBLE at flowing speed in part because debaters are super unclear. You seriously should slow down a noticeable amount if I'm your judge because unlike when I was a competitior I won't flow off your speech doc. And I won't go back to look at it if I don't understand the K or whatever. If I don't understand it when you read it, I'm not going to let your cards win the round for you after the 2AR.
Kritiks: I read a fair amount of soft left kritiks my senior year. I never read, but got fairly familiar with kritiks such as Wilderson, black nihilism, ableism, anthro. I've never heard a habeas viscus kritik I understood (not saying it can't be done, it just hasn't yet). Open and have a base level knowledge of model minority but definitely will need a little more heavy explanation on it. Same goes for high theory kritiks. EXPLAIN THE LINKS AND THE ALT.
phil: was never really my thing beyond reading util and answering Kant, so you'll need to explain more (side note: did run a testimony aff at camp once that i thought was really good)
Theory/T: I almost never read this my senior year. While I think there are times for theory, A) prove real abuse B) be slower/clearer than other ares C) weigh. I'm going to quote Chetan Hertzig's paradigm here because I think he sums up my views well "I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me."
Truth testing: never liked it or understood it????
Non-Topical Affs: I prefer critical discussion of the topic. I wrote one of these but never read it in high school. I faced these a lot my senior year, and never read T or FWK. That being said I think a lot of non-topical affs don't provide a clear enough argument as for why to vote for them. I think there are also lots of good arguments for why non-topical affs aren't good. BUT PLEASE IF YOU READ T ACTUALLY MAKE ARGUMENTS INTERACTING WITH THE AFF AND SPECIFICALLY THE ROB. Overall I think these debates are often really hard to resolve so please spend extra time articulating why you should get the ballot even if you don't defend the resolution. (Side note: I've seen an increasing trend of affs that try to find the slimmest link to the topic, while obviously not really being topical, I don't understand this or see the advantage) In short, simply reading arguments in the AC that are true, doesn't win you the ballot, you need to explain what voting for the affirmative does.
LARP: Yes. Do it. My favorite. Things to know, I probably know more about politics than you, and am an econ major. I think good counterplans and PICs are the way to win basically every round. (I read PICs all the time)
Disclosure: True arg, disclose, and be reasonable about it. Winning that you shouldn't have to disclose will usually be an uphill battle with me.
Tricks: don't. ever. please.