Karen Zimmer ParadigmLast changed 5/5 11:06A EDT
Include me on the chain: email@example.com
- I competed in Policy for 4 years at Perry HS in Ohio. I graduated in 2013 and have been coaching Policy there since. I see debate as an investment in your education. Demonstrating an in-depth understanding of your arguments, as well as kindness toward your opponents in round, will result in better speaks. Running a K on novice as varsity debaters is unnecessary and will only hurt your speaks. I consider myself a "tabula-rasa," but i will default to policy-maker if you don't provide me with a decisive way to evaluate the round.
- Backfile DAs, Ks, or CPs hurt topic education. I value quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Fewer, well-developed arguments will get your farther. Therefore, I don't prefer speed, but it's fine as long as tags and analytics are clear. Warrant analysis is essential to a good debate, so I need to be able to flow it. Debaters should keep flows compartmentalized and organized through a line by line.
- I ran kritical arguments on both sides as a debater, and as such, I am usually excited to see K affs. But! I NEED a plan text. Also-- if you have read no background literature, you don't know your aff well enough.
- I'm unlikely to go neg on T absent a clear violation and an abuse scenario. If your abuse scenario is underdeveloped, then good clash elsewhere is key to an offensive T debate from the negative. T debates should be framed on both sides, and standards need to be impacted and weighed comparatively.
- I enjoy a good theory debate. They need to be line by line debates, just like any other, and should consist of impacted and responsive standards. Interpretation debates on theory are important.
- 2NR should only go for one position. Multiple, contradicting positions in the 2NR make the judge's decision difficult. I'm unfamiliar with evaluating performance debates, more versed in traditional policy debate, but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance.
- If you run a K, I need to see that you've read the literature and really understand what you're talking about. Don't wait until the rebuttals to explain your K. Tagline extensions of 1NC evidence will never win you the K. If the neg is not doing in-depth work on the link, the perm will likely solve. Framework, where necessary, should consists of the same aspects as a good theory or T debate.
- Tag-team CX is generally unnecessary. If your partner needs help answering a question, a short interjection is fine. Otherwise, tag-teaming should be avoided.
In general, I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on. Just be nice, aid in your opponent's understanding of your arguments as well as the world of Policy Debate, and learn something from the round.