Elizabeth Sperti ParadigmLast changed 12/7 8:25A CDT
Hi! I’m Elizabeth, and I’m a sophomore at Northwestern University majoring in history or philosophy or legal studies or something else :) I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there since last spring.
· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs>>>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>>>>Phil.
· If you run tricks strike me.
· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!
Additional things you may find helpful:
I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. With that said, please ~try~ to read something other than framework if one of these cases is run against you. Of course, if that’s all you have, and you warrant/impact the argument well, I will be inclined to vote for it.
I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:
“I will make decisions that are good if:
you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.
I will make decisions that are bad if:
you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”
This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.
If the way you do debate is to try to spread your opponent out I’m probs not the judge for you.
Stuff on Ks specifically:
I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff (esp!).
If you can explain the rhizome stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.
I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.
If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy doc your speaks at least.
Stuff on theory specifically:
Really convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.
RVIs are fine I guess but if the debate is coming down to that it’s already making me sad.
If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out.
*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time or just cuz and that annoys me.
Additional additional stuff:
Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we." I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.
Please put me on the email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org). Even in my debating days I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear?
If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.
For traditional LD specifically:
If there's clash on framework then talk about it. Weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something. I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.
Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.