BAUDL HS Season Opener Oakland Tech
2019 — Oakland, CA/US
Varsity Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.
Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com
Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.
Be interesting & try to keep me awake. I want Impacts that force my hand built on super strong link chains! Kritiks, Topicality, disads, counter-kritiks, non topical affs with a policy. I'm down for whatever. Just make me pay attention! Dont be lazy and just read me someone elses opinion, make it matter.
Hi, my name is Allen Nesbitt. You may add me to your chain at ahnesbitt@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him.
I enjoy debate strategy. I am probably on the more traditional side in that I like cases with plans on the aff. That said, I will consider an argument so long as it is coherent and well reasoned. I will weigh a kritik that makes solid strategic sense in the round. I believe that K affs or affs that do not have plans have a high bar to cross on T.
I enjoy the clash inherent in competitive policy debate.
I value creative and new arguments.
I am fine with speed and tag team cx. Speak only as quickly as you can speak clearly. Go slower and OUTLINE your analytics!
I debated HS in Kansas for four years and today I own a progressive political consulting firm based in SF and DC and specialized in opposition research (oppo research = writing 1ac and 1nc blocks about political candidates and issues).
Email for sharing evidence: Anne.c.peckham@gmail.com
Debate & judging experience: I was a policy debater for Lexington High School in MA from 2000-2004. I coached and judged for Oyster-Adams in DC in from 2016-2017.
I've judged at a couple policy tournaments since 2016. Please don't assume any knowledge on this year's resolution / subject matter / typical cases.
I'm generally ok with spreading as long as you're clear, but appreciate if you can slow down a bit more in the rebuttals and help crystalize things.
Judging preferences: Fine with any arguments that are explained clearly. Please explain for me why your argument / position is better than the other team's, and what I should be voting on.
I appreciate when you give me a roadmap at the top of your speech, and for you to go line-by-line in addressing the other team's arguments. In the later rebuttals please step back and explain for me why you should win using impact analysis or another framework for how I should be making my decision.
I think debate should be fair and educational, and I am fine voting on Topicality or theory, but please explain it to me rather than just asserting it's a voting issue.
Please be respectful of each other in cx and in your characterization of the other team / their arguments.
Have fun!
I debated all 4 years in high school, mostly policy but also some kritikal args (mostly around queer theory). This year I have almost no familiarity with the topic, so spend a little time explaining terms (I probably won't know all the acronyms). I will vote on any argument provided it is well-explained and I understand what it means for me to vote for that team. Personally I think debate is a way to learn new ideas and learn how to convince people. So listen to what your opponents are saying, even if you don't think you're going to agree with them, and also convince me of your arguments! I know some judges will vote for the argument that they believe is correct, I will vote for whatever is best argued in the round. I won't write arguments for you, even if the other side is wrong and I know it, I will write it on my flow as true unless you contest it. That being said, I will not vote for arguments that are clearly racist, homophobic, etc. Ok, on to specific arguments.
General things
I want to be able to hear you and understand you. I'm pretty good with speed, but you do need to enunciate. I will let you know a couple times if I can't understand you, but after that I will stop flowing. I will let you keep track of your own time, please don't make this an issue. Also, feel free to watch my face during the round, because I usually am pretty expressive about how I feel about an argument. Please add me to the email chain, my email is dahliasaba@comcast.net.
1. DA/CP
I think that when run well, these can be a great strategy to go for. However, I do think probability is important. I don't think a 1% chance of nuclear war negates all aff advantages, you would need to take out aff solvency on case in order to go for a DA with a very unlikely impact.
2. Kritiks (Neg)
I'm a big fan of kritiks, but I think sometimes debaters will use these as an excuse to talk about something unrelated to the aff without really explaining why voting aff makes things net worse. The status quo is bad is not a winning neg argument. You need to explain the link, and if it's generic, you're gonna need to spend time explaining why it applies to the aff specifically. Also, I want to understand what the alt accomplishes, or at least have a clearly articulated framing of what a vote for the negative does. (What does it change in the status quo? Or what does it prevent from happening?) Also, please define your terms when you explain your theory! A lot of authors will use the same words in different ways, so it's always good to clarify what you're talking about, plus it helps me make sure you actually know what you're talking about and not just repeating what a coach told you to say ;)
3. Kritikal Affs
Like above, clearly clarify your theory of the world. Also, remember to expand your argument beyond a history lesson, either propose some sort of starting point for addressing the problem or explain why you can't do so. Basically, just be specific in what your theory is, why it matters, and what using it as a debate argument accomplishes. Also, even if I'm not voting for a policy plan, I do want to know what I am voting for, so please tell me what my decision means.
4. T
I don't really like these arguments because I think a lot of the time these arguments are used as an excuse to not engage with an argument. However, I will vote on it if you prove that there was some sort of violation in the round that made it impossible to engage with the other side. I especially like it if you can use the impact of T to turn the aff, but if you do a good job you can win T without that.
Cal debate 13-17, coached for Cal 18-22, currently coaching Houston.
I'm online for Georgetown but expect to judge in person at Texas and the NDT. Online, please slow down a bit and record your speeches in case there are connection issues.
Debate is for debaters; I'll vote for no-plan Affs, Ks, and even conditionality bad. Of course, arguments that attack opponents as people, wipeout*, spark, and "new Affs bad" will never be considered.
Default is judge kick. This can be reversed but requires ink before the 2AR.
I take judge instruction very seriously.
I have a very high bar for ethics challenges and will presume good faith error by the accused.
*Saying another value matters more than extinction is perfectly fine.