Background

William G Enloe HS '20 - qualified to TOC twice (13 bids, cleared junior year) and NSDA thrice

Chain: speechdrop.net >> tgedela@gmail.com

Don't care what you read and can competently evaluate most things

Last updated August 2022

Online Debate

Record your speeches in case of tech issues - I'm not flowing redos

Turn up your volume during your speeches so you can hear me saying clear/ slow over the sound of yourself spreading

Preference for file share/ Zoom chat over email

Toplevel

Speaks boost for taking less prep + sitting down early if you've won

Rules: debate is a game, speech times etc, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, compiling a doc is prep but sending it isn't

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-lose issue given severity)

---Death/suffering good (spark-esque stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ physical location (except disclosure screenshots)

---Identity-based arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

Independent voters are not independent voters if not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Arguments start at 0% and go up based on your warranting - larger or unintuitive claims need stronger warrants

Traditional/lay debate is fine, progressive/circuit debaters should be accessible

Policy

Useful and underutilized: impact calc and turns case/ disad, ev comparison, smart analytic advantage counterplans/ PICs

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Framing cards (i.e. probability first) aren't substitutes for debating the disad

Usually won’t read ev unless you tell me to

Don't forget to kick advocacies in the 2NR - judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context (and explain any insertions)

T/ Theory

Defaults: f/ e are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI

Thresholds (largely just a preference that'll reflect in speaks)

---Fine - counterplan theory, T, resolutional spec, AFC, spec status, etc.

---Not fine - font, dinosaurs, shoes, etc.

K

Need to prove that the aff is a bad idea - 1NC link walls are good

Winning framework is important for both sides and can decide the debate

Alt solves case and link turns case claims indexed to the affs impacts are useful

Case debate is still important - so is weighing the case

I seem to vote for Ks vs phil affs (when well executed tech-wise) more than vs policy affs

Familiar with most literature bases but will avoid filling in gaps in explanation

K affs/ T

Affs

---Need to do something

---Don't feel comfortable adjudicating personal survival strategies

Neg

---T - fairness and clash/ research >> skills/ movements

---K - most familiar with cap and black fem - others are heavily contingent on your ability for explanation 

---Presumption and PICs are underutilized

Phil/ Tricks/ Etc

Defaults: comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption

Epistemic modesty requires clear impact calc and LD presumption/ permissibility requires justification

You should always read a framework

Things I shouldn’t have to say but fit best here

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---The 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret as you wish

---Delineate and explain arguments (and their implications) - this includes CX

Cheating

Speaks probably getting tanked.

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping at least 3-5+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.