To start with, I have about 4 years of experiences in CX. I'm familiar with most of the stuff. I have also debated LD for a while. I try to keep myself updated with all of the terms and topics for both. However, I would like to be reminded or explained about few terms or shorthand if I'm confused.
Speed and technical reasoning are more than welcome unless you exclude people. Relative Analysis, Clash, Warranting shape the debate. I respect debaters who use verbal and nonverbal cues to mark crucial information as such, regardless of speech and skill. Slowing down, changing your tone, and repeating yourself are all effective ways to communicate that something is essential, and you should use them. To avoid me misinterpreting you or believing you're using jargon as a support, you should simplify whenever possible.
I flow most of my rounds electronically to be efficient. Make whatever use you choose of that.
I normally start at 28 speaker points and move up or down from there based on productivity, simplicity, clever strategic judgements and overall essence. I don't mind if you're funny or serious. Simply do your job well.
I appreciate strategic application of theory, but you must slow down and allow me more time to write; construct comprehensive arguments with a claim, some justifications, and an impact; and participate in comparative analysis.
I'm not excessively specific with regards to how the aff connects with the topic, simply be certain that relationship is clear. Knowing your portrayal and having consistency of clarification from 1AC to 2AR is significant. You would be all around served to have thoroughly considered a case list supported by your counter-interpretation against structure so you can ventilate genuine discussions that would work out under your model.
The more specific the explanation, the better. I refrain from competing interpretations, as I think one of the burdens of those involved is to defend their choice of support. Rationality is an argument for the counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. Limits discussion usually determines how I feel about the adequacy of aff. Accuracy standards are underutilized and access to all sorts of interesting educational impacts that can be applied as a lack of solvency on a case-by-case basis.
K-frame is theoretical. You ought to deal with it as such. I'm inquisitive about resolving questions of ways this debate, the wider activity, myself, you, your opponents, and any target that might be there are implicated inside your arguments.
A response plan for a specific case is better than a universal one. It depends on the multi-actor propensity, counseling conditions and conditions.
I tend to think that beginning conditions decide the course of occasions, so uniqueness as a rule decides the course of a connection. Be that as it may, I acknowledge the contention that typically not the case in certain cases, as distant as the proof base exists.
Debate is an activity wonderful from other speech oriented activities, and I care about keeping that distinction. Right here are a few inquiries to guide your thinking regardless of your vision of debate: What kinds of discussions are counted and why do they count greater numbers than others we could be having? Why debate in preference to a few other modes of opposition or scholarly/activist work? What is the function of the aff? What's the function of the negative? How does conflict work? What limits exist below your interpretation?