Young Lawyers
2018 — UT/US
Novice Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePlease include me on the email chain: kiarapengue@live.com
You’re also welcome to email me for whatever else as well.
Pronouns: she/her
Update For Alta:
This will be my first tournament on this topic. I have been out of debate for about three years now. With that being said, I will do my best to keep up, but you will have to do a bit more work on topic specific args in explanation/etc. Write my ballot for me please and thank you :D
Background:
I debated three years at Copper Hills, debated for a bit at Weber State under Ryan Wash.
I was primarily a K debater; running arguments focusing on fem/intersectional fem and critiques of debate. I'm open to any type of new argumentation as well.
(Conflicts: Copper Hills High School)
Shorter version:
You can run whatever you want, but I'd rather you run what you're good at, K or trad. With that being said, I have a HIGH burden on you explaining whatever argument you choose to run. Don't just assume I understand your theory (this is much more applicable to K debate over trad policy.) Write my ballot for me, please (what are you winning and why do you deserve to win?)
For the Aff:
For topical affs:
Contrary to what it may seem, I'm down with a good policy aff and traditional debates as a whole. However, I need some solid case debating, impact calc, etc. Alt causes and good case turns are also favored.
For K Affs:
No, your aff doesn't have to have a plan text and no, it doesn't *technically* have to have any relation to the topic (though it is preferred).
If I don't understand what the K aff is or does, then I'm likely not voting on it. Y'all can't just say "K aff :)" and call it good.
K v K debates = :)
On that note, I'm real picky about the perm in a K v K debate so make sure you do enough work on it
In FW debates, K affs need to prove why debate is necessary for your specific methodology as well as prove that the educational/etc impacts of the aff are the most important thing to weigh in the round.
For the Neg:
DA’s:
cool.
CP’s:
cool.
pics: if you're going to take the aff away from the aff, tell me why that's a good thing and something that I can vote on.
K’s:
I think the best K debates are ones that are specific and that have a meaning to them. I don't particularly like generics such as cap and security, but if it's done well I'll still vote on them. I feel the best part about K debate is that you get to specifically show your individualism and passion within the debate space. I don't have a high burden on alt solvency so long as the link is strong and clearly explained. But with all of that being said, I’d still rather see a traditional policy debate than a poor K debate.
T:
I actually really like topicality debates, my only comment for this is to make sure in your last speeches to give me clear voters, don’t expect me to just extend what you already said in your previous speeches.
For FW, I feel the TVA is especially important as it's your job to prove that the aff makes debate impossible.
Performance:
Yes, love this, read it, but that also means you have to explain it!! Make sure that the performance doesn’t get dropped in the debate.
other theory:
things I don't like: new affs bad, disclosure, speaks k, and prefs theory. I don't have any strong feelings about other theory args.
Speaker points:
I base a lot of my speaker points off of CX and your presence in the round. Everyone does debate for their own reasons, so let that show. If you are memorable and if you are passionate about what you’re talking about, you’ll probably get higher speaks. I think cross ex is valuable, I will be paying attention to it. This means that you could be losing the round but be getting better speaks.
I feel like this goes without saying but…
Please don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. there’s also no need to be overly aggressive. This is a space where everyone is supposed to feel safe and comfortable, not a space where they feel that they aren’t welcome.
Hi! I'm a very TAB judge, who's relatively new at judging debate; however I have a good amount of experience with Policy and PF as I did those two events as varsity in High School, taking state for Policy.
For Policy debate, I will judge Aff on their holding up of the stock issues (DA, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality). If AFF drops at least one stock issue, they will lose the round. I will judge contentions based on the cards presented (w/ author/date credibility), effectiveness of arguments, and number of cards and contentions flowed through. At the end of the round, the stock issues win/loss will be determined based on how many arguments flow through to the end.
I understand spewing/spreading, and I understand the reasoning behind it. BUT; if you spew/spread please ensure you slow down on the header of each card and contention, otherwise I may miss your argument and not get it flowed on my paper. If you're spewing too fast, and aren't clear on your points just know that I might miss something (and for policy you don't want your judge to miss something).
Hi! I'm Maddie Simpson (she/her). I did policy in high school and worked at Michigan Debate 7 Week this summer and am somewhat familiar with the topic, but please don't assume I know every generic on the topic.
Email me with questions always and anytime, also I like to be on email chains if there is one: maddiemarsimpson@gmail.com
Add me to email chain please! Cool with anything you want to run (I will say I don't like K's that are just for trolling). Spread your hearts out, but if you're not clear, it won't get flowed.
Cross Ex
>Tag team is fine, but avoid interrupting your partner if they attempt to answer first unless they're about to concede something or turn themselves.
>>Side Note: Whoever is supposed to be asking questions should be the main one asking questions, because cross-ex is prep for your partner
>It's totally fine if cross ex gets heated just make sure you don't waste time attacking someone's character rather than their arguments and case.
>A good cross ex makes a debate a lot more fun, i.e. creative and sneaky questions help both sides.
>Every moment of cross-ex should contain words, silence in cross ex is a strategic loss
>I really don't like when people concede cross-ex. I find it strategic to concede cross ex if you are debating in open; however, in novice there's always room for clarification and pinpointing where your opponents are lacking.
Main Factors in my Decision Calculus:
-Did you treat competitors with respect and inclusiveness? This should be simple.
-Did you make a case and give me a reason to vote for you?
-Did you attack the other side and provide evidentiary-based claims to support your case?
-Did you cover each flow?
-Was there high level analysis of big picture issues in the debate?
Novice Notes:
-Flowing gives you control in round, don't neglect to do it.
-Please use email chain even though you have same evidence, it's good practice and highlighting, etc. is relevant often.
-If you are panicking or blanking, I'd rather you take a second and breathe in the hall or in your seat then to concede a speech or fumble through it incomprehensibly. I totally get that stress and as a novice. If it's only a second or so or you need some water, I won't take away any prep. Don't push it though as I want you to have the opportunity to give the best speech you can.
Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.
I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.