Kenton Fox ParadigmLast changed 10/8 6:58P CDT
4 year high school Policy at Newton High School
6th speaker in Policy at 2018 NSDA
1 year Parli at William Jewell College (joke event, don't recommend)
Currently researching philosophy at WJC
My "blank slate" is composed in two enduring elements: 'debate is a game', 'debate has political consequence'
-debate is a game-
... but not an ordinary game: a not yet had debate round is an infinite ontological probability - the possibilities of what could be performed during a round are endless. No theory argument is a rule. Nothing codified by the NSDA, CFL, KSHSAA, or whoever else amounts to a rule. Every principle followed in this space is foremost a convention, a habit the space has formed and continues to re-form every time it is acted out; this means it's a potential of the space. What endures throughout any attempt by some institution to create law is the existential freedom experienced by individuals participating in common space. When you are giving your speech you are bound by nothing but what has been said. The decision will be arrived at by exclusive means of what is on the flow.
-debate has political consequence-
Debate is only a game, but not merely a game among games. Every debate round is also a pedagogical site: dually an ontological and an epistemological construction zone. Acting like (for example) a policy deliberator is not a passive act, it forms habits of interaction with the world which assume the self as part of the state and it develops a policy-oriented psychic configuration: policy solutions as the edifice in which is understood. The principle that debate has political (which includes pedagogical and agential dimensions) consequence is the primary method I use to weight arguments on the flow: the team to win my ballot will be the one which proves best they deserve the political action signified by the ballot to be an upvote of their persons or their in-round representations.
The best way for a policy 1ac to win my ballot is by using very specific internal link chains paired with a strong solvency. More real impact scenarios will always put you in a better position to win for me. Condo is a good arg if neg has an excessive number of offcase positions.
If you have a non-T 1ac, I'm a good person to run it for.
Anything that is not the 1ac is neg ground unless aff wins a theory arg saying otherwise. Any fiated DA is held to the same level of specificity expected of 1ac impact scenarios; this does not necessarily mean case-specific lit, but any generic ev should be highly contextualized to the case during the whole extension from Link (including specific process of overcoming the UQ) to terminal. CP debates will almost always be decided by impact calc.
I'm a good person to run K's for. My most used argument throughout my competitive debate career has been Cap; I've most often ran either a postmodern pedagogical analysis or a Zizekian psychoanalysis. Still, I will enjoy about any K from the most concrete to the most abstract if the analysis is done thoughtfully and is clearly articulated against the AFF.
Most of all, have fun :)
Debate is a game, debate has political consequence: if (as I think they are) these are the only two enduring characters we can attribute to debate, the activity has all the making to be incredible fun - competitive, exciting, purposeful, important, ... That being said, anyone who excessively monopolizes the space in such a way as to prevent others the opportunity to have fun (read: is harassing, abusive, makes excessive use of ad hominem, or is generally a jack@$$) will be downvoted.
Full Judging Record
|Blue Valley Southwest Invitational||1538164800 9/28/2018||6 R6||BVNW BS||LawFre BB||Aff|
|Blue Valley Southwest Invitational||1538164800 9/28/2018||5 R5||SMNW FM||OlaEas TM||Neg|
|Blue Valley Southwest Invitational||1538164800 9/28/2018||4 R4||BVN CI||LawFre SV||Aff|
|Blue Valley Southwest Invitational||1538164800 9/28/2018||2 R2||BVN AH||SMS TS||Aff|