Cherish Recera ParadigmLast changed 11/17 8:12P CDT
I was a Lincoln-Douglas Debater for all 4 years at Carl Sandburg High School (Class of 2017). I occasionally did Public Forum and Congress as well.
I am coaching Parliamentary debaters at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Class of 2021). From time to time, I'll compete in Lincoln-Douglas, but, at the moment, I am mostly judging, mentoring, and handling public relations.
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
November/December 2019 NSDA LD Resolution: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.
1. Explain Evidence Thoroughly
Cards are just cards if a debater does not provide insight as to how these pieces of evidence mean anything for their case or even for the resolution at large. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.
Do not expect me to vote on T if it is done wrong. T is a question of "is the Affirmation topical." Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the Affirmation that is topical.
I will vote on these if they are convincing and if compelling evidence is explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the Affirmation, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the Affirmative side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.
Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the Kritik. If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to (A) make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or (B) to force your opponent to respond to it, even if it isn't topical (that's just abusive argumentation).
If run well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with most theory if others are used. That being said, still explain the reason why the theory argument applies; do not leave it underdeveloped.
6. The Standard Framework (Value and Value Criterion)
Your framework exists for a reason, so I expect you to clearly connect your contentions back to your value criterion and then to your value (think of it as a linking chain). Contentions contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.
I'm generally okay with speed. If you're going too fast, I will put down my pen so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow your points.
Anything you say after the time is up will not be written down on the flow.
Speak up, but don't yell.
Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. However, I do appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me," especially towards the end of the round.
I'm open to any argument as long as it is not obtuse or offensive. Trigger warnings should be given for sensitive content. If you do not explicitly say "Trigger warning" before such content, expect to lose speaker points.
As always, be respectful towards your opponent. If you have any questions about your case, debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me.