Theodore Appel ParadigmLast changed 3/6 10:53P EDT
I am a law student at the University of Iowa. I have done both policy debate (6 years) and public forum (1 year) at the University of Miami and Theodore Roosevelt High School at Iowa.
Policy Debate Paradigm is on top and PF on bottom.
Policy Debate Paradigm
While I am experienced and fine with spreading, I haven't heard spreading in a while. Clarity should be emphasized over speed. I'll shout out clear or something like that if it needs to be said.
I want to be on the email chain. From experimentation, I feel its been best for me to immerse myself in the literature with you.
If you actual cite a legal case, whether federal or state, I will be happy. If you properly explain the case, I will be even happier. I feel like mandatory reading should be Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) on this immigration topic.
I would prefer a plan text or at least an advocacy statement for disclosure/fairness reasons. However, it doesn't mean I will vote the Aff down with no text.
Fine with policy or critical advantages, just make sure to do impact calc. When I mean impact calc., I mean magnitudes, timeframes and turning the other teams impacts.
I really want to see plan text specific solvency/advantages. For example, if your plan text states the USFG should implement a Top Runner Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (TRRNCT), I want your solvency and advantages to reference the TRRNCT. This shows that you have done your research, thus a better debate for me and higher speaks for you. I think an underutilized negative strategy looking at Aff's evidence and showing to me that their own pieces of evidence doesn't comport when it comes to the plan text. Obviously Aff should do the same type of plan specific analysis when looking at the da link or cp evidence of the neg strat. I understand that this wish may be hard but its something that I want to push in high school and college policy debate.
Strategic T violations that have been researched are going to be more persuasive than a general T. For example, If the neg runs a T that defines decrease as 40% or some other number they need to show why that 40% is so key to this subject matter or better yet to that plan. The neg also needs to take time to connect the dots between violations standards and voters. Potential abuse can work but needs to be explained clearly and really impacted out. Unless their is a very convincing argument, RVI's are generally a reason for me to reject the argument rather than the team.
As stated earlier, specific links are more persuasive then general links. Impact analysis should be included as well. See AFF impact calc.
Specific Evidence is more persuasive than the generic solvency answers. Aff should go through POST ie Perm Offense Solvency Theory.
Consult and Conditions CP's are a bit abusive but the aff needs to win that theory for me to not evaluate the CP.
If a theme has been established, it is that the more specific evidence you have to the aff the better position the neg will be in. I understand the simplier K's such as security and cap but don't let that distract you for going to your K. I have read D and G, Judy Butler, Faucault. The alt is the most important part of the K debate for me and needs to be clearly explained ie what happens in world of alt and why perm doesn't work. With FWK, I generally default to weighing the advantages against the critique. Obviously if this doesn't get answered then their is a problem from both things.
Fair game. Depends on the situation. Obviously condo on the one off K isn't going to make much sense but 5 CP's with 3 conditional planks ... just maybe.
As stated earlier i am a policy judge. This means I will look towards the impacts at the end of the round. Both teams need to show how the topic goes to the impact. In terms of Framework, If a team wins it I don't automatically give the ballot to that team. It's just the way I view the round. So even if the other team losses their fwk interp, if they do a better job of impacts under your definition then I will vote on the impacts that best represent the interp ie the other team.