Karen Zimmer ParadigmLast changed 6/14 11:53P EST
Include me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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 need gasp-level speed. Spreading is fine-- as long as tags and analytics are clear. Warrant analysis is essential to a good debate *and I need to be able to flow it.
- *Debaters must flow. You HAVE to flow. Keeping good flows is the best way of seeing the debate from a judge's perspective. Flows are an essential tool for use in partner communication and in-round decision-making. Both partners MUST FLOW-- and *flow FROM THE SPEAKER, NOT from THE DOC. Do not waste CX time asking which cards the speaker skipped. Do not waste your speech time answering arguments they didn't read. Don't miss the analytical arguments that your opponents included speech but not their doc (either because it was dope and off-the-dome or because they don't have to ).
- Keep flows compartmentalized and organized through a line by line. Clean flows make judges most happy and => ^ speaks.
- Look at your judges during speeches and pay attention to whether they are flowing! Your partner can help with this and signal if you perhaps need to slow down, be more clear or just move on.
- 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.
- The 2NR should only go for one position/world. Multiple, contradicting positions in the 2NR make the judge's decision difficult.
- If you run a K, demonstrate that you've read the literature, know your authors and truly understand what you're advocating-- don't wait until the rebuttals to explain the critical theory behind your lx and alts.
- Tagline extensions of 1NC evidence will never win you the K debate. 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.
- I'm unfamiliar with evaluating performance debates but they've won my ballot before. Same rules-- know your stuff.
- 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.
- 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.
What's most key for me?
- Show care and always aid in your opponents' understanding of the arguments and the world of Policy Debate as a whole; be authentic and vulnerable but know your arguments inside and out; do not take this precious activity or space for granted and learn something from every round.