Tess Botkin ParadigmLast changed 10/30 5:12P GMT
Debated @ University of Central Oklahoma 3 years
I judged frequently in the 2015-2016 season, and at this tournament last year. I haven't judged on this topic yet, but I do have a fair amount of knowledge on healthcare and have been working to catch up on the literature (My grandmother has worked in heathcare admitting and billing for 45 years and my mother for 20). If you are a very fast paced team and you read your analyticals at the same speed as your cards you should probably slow down a tad on your analyticals anyway regardless of who is in the back of the room.
While I debated I was mostly a middle of the road K debater I read typically topical affs with kritikal advantages, and most of the time only went for one or two off on the negative with a case debate. That being said I do have a background that means I am very familiar with DA/CP/T type strategies and would be happy to hear them, I just was not very good at executing them as a debater. Also be forewarned I have not done research on this topic, and am not actively doing so now. That being said I do have some general thoughts:
Do what you best, it is much better for me to see you doing what you are good at than what you think I will want to hear, just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it, other than obviously derogatory arguments/language. Really your strategies should be well thought out, cohesive, and specific. My only proclivity is that I am a believer that conditionality is good but that your arguments should not directly contradict, especially if one of your arguments is discourse based. It makes no sense to me that I would vote for you on a certain type of discourse being bad when you yourself have engaged in that discourse. Now obviously the other team does have to impact this argument, but it is something I feel as though you should know. *When the timer goes off I stop flowing, you don't get to make three additional arguments while the timer is going off*
These are fine, where I feel many DA’s are weakest are at the internal link level. Obviously DA impacts are exaggerated but so are almost any impacts you will hear in a debate round. These arguments are best when they are told to me like a story, I need to know why what the aff specifically does cause your scenario. I also feel that often the link is not as specific as the negative leads us to believe, but if that isn’t pointed out or exploited in cross x then it becomes irrelevant. Don’t just grant someone a link, actually contest it because if it doesn’t link it doesn’t matter. Also kritiks of DA impacts are fine I utilized them often but just because you have a K of a DA doesn’t mean you can ignore the rest of the scenario, you do actually have to contest the link/internal link of the DA as well.
I like a smart CP with a built in net benefit or even just a generic counterplan. I think both have their uses. The counterplan does actually have to have some sort of a net benefit whether that is a k or a DA doesn’t matter to me it just has to be there. My only real problem comes with some word PIC’s if it is a generic word pic like “the” or “resolve” or “usfg” you do need to actually explain to me a reason why in this specific instance or on this specific topic it is bad. I have a really hard time with the probability level on the impact for these types of arguments. Not to say that all word pics are bad, i.e. those out of sexist, ableist, racist, or other derogatory language. This can also be used for word pics out of a word that just doesn’t make sense in an area of U.S. code etc.
T is fine with me, just keep in mind I haven’t read the literature and won’t know the arguments there, so you may have to explain to me your interpretation and ground loss a little more than to some other people. I do in general think teams should be topical, or at least related to the topic, but if you are not even talking about the topic I’m going to have a hard time with voting for you, it’s not to say it’s not possible but it’s an uphill battle.
Framework is fine I have ran a policy fw, and I’ve also kritiked them, so really I just think it is about who argues it the best. I think that the negative should at least have ground, if you don’t want to defend usfg action fine, but you cannot just state a non-falsifiable truth, because that is not a debatable argument. There has to be something the negative can say that is not a morally repugnant argument.
K’s are fine this is probably what I am most familiar with and debated the majority of the time. You need to actually explain to me what your alternative does and why that matters/solves your impact. I think a lot of the time the alternative is just given to K teams when it should be contested. This is particularly true in the case of Reject alts. Why does rejecting the aff magically stop extinction? I have no idea so you might want to explain that to me. I am open to all k’s but I will say I do not have a background in high theory. I am open to Baudrillard, D and G, etc but I do not get it when I try to read it so you will definitely have to explain it to me. If I do not understand the argument I will probably have a harder time voting for it, so you must explain it to me.
I think these arguments are very valuable to debate and am open to watching them, keep in mind the rest of my philosophy as I am open to voting on FW or T so you may very well end up having this debate with me in the back of the room. However I am not biased to vote either way on FW I just think it is a debate worth having. I will flow even if you don’t read cards as I think that analyticals can be just as valuable as evidence when used correctly. I do ask that for flowing purposes you roadmap clearly and isolate which responses are to which argument, because I do sometimes have difficulty finding where certain arguments are after the debate is over, and this will be helpful for both me and you when I am evaluating the debate and in the post round if you ask me about x argument that was made.