Elyse Kats ParadigmLast changed 12/3 4:32P MST
Blue Valley High School 2016- 4 years of policy, LD, and congress
Arizona State University 2020- Current policy debater
Please ask me any questions about this to clear anything up. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have after the round.
1) I prefer fast, clear, and technical debates; if you drop an arg it flows the other way. But please, do not try to go faster than you are able to. You need to do more than shadow extend cards.
2) Clarity is more important than speed. I'll say clear once or twice if I can't hear every word you're saying, but after that you'll just lose speaks if it's not clear.
Policy argument types:
Kritiks—I am not particularly well read in terms of literature, but I am more than willing to consider whatever you read. I have experience only in college with the K, so just make sure you're explaining everything well and I will be willing to vote on it.
Counterplans—Explain the solvency advocate and I'll consider any type.
Disads—I value impact calc heavily so make sure you're doing the proper analysis there, comparison is key. In terms of generic DA's I have a pretty high threshold for the link, so make sure you prove it.
Theory—I will vote on thoery in certain cases; however, I am more willing to reject the argument instead of the team. I usually think condo is good, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In terms of other theoretical arguments I don't have an inherent bias either way. You should always disclose, and I will vote on disclosure theory (if you prove the impact).
Topicality—I will definitely vote on T. However, if you explain why you're reasonably topical well I will default to reasonability. I view T like other arguments, if there's no link (violation) or impact (voters) then I won't vote on it.
Framework- I used to be a very policy-based debater, but I am definitely willing to consider alternative frameworks now. In general, just make sure your explain framework well and I will consider any type. On the aff I don't think you need a plan text/ state action, but the neg can convince me otherwise.
- I consider the value/ criterion debate first, make sure you do enough analysis here and challenge it first. If that debate becomes a wash I will default to the solvency/ impacts on the contentions.
- I'm willing to consider critical positions/ cases
- Look to my policy paradigm for further elaboration