Avanyish Toniappa ParadigmLast changed 9/27 1:42P CDT
Blue Valley North 2014-2018
General: I debated for Blue Valley North for four years as primarily a 1A/2N. I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic so when using topic specific acronyms or phrases please break them down for me and then I’ll catch on. In terms of argumentation feel free to do whatever you want, just know that I am probably not the best judge for super K oriented debates but if that’s your thing then I will do my best to keep up. I default to tech over truth so dropped arguments have lots of merit and points of contest require specific warrant comparison/analysis rather than surface level claims. Evidence quality is important for winning debates. I will default to how the debaters spin the evidence, but under highlighted cards that don’t really say anything will generally not be persuasive, especially if your opponent calls you out for that. Don't be rude during CX.
Overall, I try not to intervene at all as a judge, so your arguments should write my RFD for me. Make it clear what is important and set a clear framing for what I should consider important.
email chain - email@example.com
Topicality: competing interpretations is probably a better framing for T debates than reasonability, however, I can be convinced otherwise if the affirmative has a robust explanation of why I should prefer reasonability. The negative team should have specific impacts to their limits or ground arguments. Specific instances of abuse are greater than general potential abuse. FYI don’t spread your t-blocks at me top speed because that’s not ideal.
Framework/Planless Affs: I am down to listen to planless affirmatives, but this is definitely an area where explanations of how the affirmative functions and why the deviation from policy action is beneficial to solvency need to be fleshed out for me. For framework debates I think the negative should have a TVA and specific examples of how the aff hinders fairness or education rather than just generic “policy education good” arguments.
DA: Intricate DA debates are super cool, link turns and internal link turns are things I would encourage (offense is always good). For disadvantages I am down for whatever, but make sure that the cards in the 1NC shell have real warrants and aren’t under highlighted and then blown up in the 2NC because then I will be sympathetic to 1AR spin. Recent UQ cards will always be more advantageous than older cards and specific links to the affirmative should be present at some point in the debate. Try to avoid ridiculous internal link chains, but if your opponent doesn’t call you out for it then… last thought is that specific impact calculus will help you a lot especially with turns case arguments.
CP: Do whatever you want here. Advantage CPs and PICs are smart. The more specific the CP is to the aff the better so I am all about that.
Case: Big fan of good case debates. Impact turns and smart warranted defense on the affirmative can go a long way in assigning zero probability to the affirmative.
K: You can read any K you want and a win is possible, but you should be specifically explaining the links and should have specific links to the aff. The most important thing for me is alt solvency. Please explain how the alt is able to resolve the links of the affirmative prevent the impact. Buzz words and k tricks are probably not the best strategy when I am, in the back of the room, but if you logically explain your argument then I can probably follow it. I am relatively familiar with arguments about Cap/Neolib and biopower and even with those arguments you should be explaining the specifics of how the K functions. Framework on the K goes a long way for both the affirmative and negative team and if the aff has disads to the alt then I find that particularly persuasive. Links of omission are fake.
Theory: My default is to reject the argument not the team. Theory debates are similar to T debates for me so have specific instances of abuse and what the implications of X theory violation are and why that is a reason to reject argument or even team.