Salihah Gray ParadigmLast changed 10/15 1:01P EDT
Affiliations: Granada Hills Charter HS
I debated at Granada for 3 years. Granada is probably as traditional as it gets, however, I am one of the few that is not. With that being said, everything I learned is from sources outside of school so I might not be able to follow the most outlandish arguments (this has yet to happen, and it’s likely that I’ll pick up on the newest of trends if its explained in round and warranted)
I currently attend USC and am majoring in politics, philosophy & law (that’s all one). Don’t assume that you can run dense philosophical framework without explanation and I’ll pick up on it. Do assume that this means I like philosophy.
In General: I will vote on almost any argument that is warranted. Before I wrote a paradigm, I used to say, “Whoever has the most offense under the winning framework wins” but then I realized that has too many nuances and exceptions, so use your discretion and stay tuned for the rest of the paradigm. (I thought I could sum it up, but no)
Speed: I’m fine with speed. Slow down for tags/ authors. If you want higher speaks slow down for important analyses, impact weighing, and things you find important to the ballot. I like when debaters slow down for 30 seconds or so at the end of their last speech to crystallize, but that’s just a stylistic preference. I will say clear twice, if you ignore it then I’ll start docking speaks.
Thinks I like (subject to change all the time):
Evidence weighing is my jam, and I feel like it’s an underused strategy, so utilize it.
Impact weighing is also my jam and it’s a big mistake if you don’t do it.
I like those rare unique arguments that view the resolution from a different perspective, but I also like when debaters run stock arguments but put a lot of research into it and have a deep comprehension of it
Philosophy/ethics: IF you can understand it and put it into your own words, then explain it in round. (seriously, don’t run anything you can’t understand)
Args that are generally considered tricky: I probably won’t give weight to triggers/ a prioris, but I’m flexible. You’re taking a risk though.
I’m not too fond of skep and you probably shouldn’t run it in front of me, but I am flexible on this if it is necessary.
I will give weight to CERTAIN spikes/blippy arguments, but I will not vote on them unless there is literally no offense in the round (please don’t do this to me). The way I evaluate if a spike gets weight in the round is really arbitrary (I try my hardest not to be, but I’m just being honest) so again, it’s a risk.
Theory: Frivious theory is probably one of my biggest pet peeves (especially if multiple theory shells are used as a neg time advantage). HI don’t default on competing interps/ reasonability. I do default to drop the argument and theory is not an RVI. However, my defaults don’t matter if you’re making these args in round. (You don’t have to win competing interps if you win I meets.
Policy stuff: I’m cool with it. Nothing else to see here.
Kritiks: I like Ks even though I’m not familiar with too much K lit. Even though I’m not too familiar with K lit, my threshold for Ks is rapidly increasing because the abundance of crappy Ks are increasing.
Extensions: make full extensions, not blippy one-liners
Comparative worlds/ truth testing: I default to comparative worlds, but again, my default doesn’t, matter if you make this argument in round.
WARNINGS, things I dislike, things you will get dropped for: -I’ll probably be really sensitive to args based in race, racism, racial justice, or anything in that category (self-explanatory). I’m not saying don’t run it, because I like the arguments, I’m saying be mindful of how you’re refuting it, and don’t be insensitive/offensive.
-Don’t be the devil’s advocate and say things that we all know are morally reprehensible are good (that’s an automatic drop)
-Try not to say silence is consent. I know that’s not how you mean it, but the statement is inherently harmful.
-Don’t make a hostile environment (this is not in the sense of just being generally rude, and you will get dropped for it)
Speaks: I average around 27. The easier you make it for me to write the ballot, the more speaks you’ll get.
Things that will give you higher speaks:
GOOD impact weighing
GREAT crystallization (threshold getting higher)
Honestly, just make it easy for me
Things that will lower your speaks:
Intentional disorganization to confuse your opponent will get you even lower speaks
- I will call for evidence if need be
- Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have questions about anything