Debate paradigm

Background

I’m a freshman at Stanford University and I debated in Public Forum at NSU University School for four years on the national circuit.

Short Version

I vote solely off the flow. All offense in final focus must be in the summary speech. First summary should extend all defense they want in the final focus (I think the new three minute summary is plenty enough time to extend defense, so I don’t believe it’s “sticky” anymore). Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow (including offense read in the previous rebuttal). Tech > truth.

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but I hate bad weighing. Don't do these 4 things.

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and probability weighing is usually defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus.

- **I really mean this** there are only three weighing mechanisms: magnitude, probability, and time frame. “Scope” is just a weird word for magnitude, “strength of link” doesn’t even exist, and “severity” is also just a word for magnitude

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision. I generally tend to believe that reading evidence promotes intervention.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will probably drop the argument unless there's very good warranting as to why I shouldn’t. Miscut evidence will 100% reduce your speaker points.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want

- I encourage speech docs if you’re really going to spread (I would encourage these either way no matter the speed)

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and read it a lot myself in high school, but I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K.

- I believe Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, so if a debater is not disclosed or they paraphrase their evidence I tend to find reading theory against them for these specific violations is a particularly compelling strategy

- If you’re disclosed on the NDCA PF Wiki, let me know before the round begins and I will boost your speaker points by 0.3

Other things:

- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm

- Post-rounding is fine, just don't be rude about it

- Pre-flow before the round

- Do NOT call me judge

- I will not vote on racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, islamaphobic, anti-semitic, etc. arguments… I don’t care if you think you’re “winning on the flow”, you will be dropped and reported to tab.

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

NSU '22

UPenn '26

During my career, I won NSDA Nationals and got to quarterfinals of the TOC.

Add me to the email chain afrankk@sas.upenn.edu

Tech>truth - I will vote off the flow and on any argument that's well warranted, extended, and weighed.

I ran a lot of structural violence arguments during my career. When done well, I am very inclined to vote on these types of arguments. However, if you tell me why extinction/util matters more than I am also more than willing to vote on that.

Defense is not sticky - this is especially true with 3 minute summaries.

Frontline everything (offense and defense) in second rebuttal on the argument(s) you're going for; you should also probably already be collapsing in second rebuttal. There are very few teams who can pull off front-lining every contention well and still get to the other team's case with enough time.

I am extremely unlikely to default. I will try to find any piece of offense in the round I can vote on. If I can't, I'll probably just vote for the team that debated better.

I can usually flow most speeds, but if I think you're going too fast, I will ask for a case doc after.

Do:

- Roadmaps (you rlly only need to tell me where you're starting if you signpost well)

- Comparative Weighing

- Make me laugh in cross and/or speeches

- Pre-flow before the round

Do Not:

- Take a while to get a piece of evidence; more than 2 minutes and i'll probably get annoyed

- Call me "judge" - this feels too official

- Be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

- Read that 900 million ppl go into poverty during recessions without some sort of warrant

Theory:

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I won't drop you on face for paraphrasing or not disclosing, but I would be very likely to vote on disclosure and/or paraphrasing theory.

The purpose of theory is made to make the debate space more equitable and improve norms. Do not just read theory with the sole purpose of winning the debate.

Kritiks:

Probably not the best judge to read a K in front of. I have minimal experience with them, but if you want to run one I will try my best to evaluate it.

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. PLEASE. It doesn't matter if you're winning an argument if you don't tell me why that argument matters more than the other team's.

If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important and why.

Trigger Warnings:

Trigger warnings are only needed when describing graphic/explicit content. There have only been 2-3 times in my debate career in which I've encountered arguments that truly needed a TW. I don't think trigger warnings are necessary for arguments that say common phrases such as "domestic violence." These types of arguments are important and should be read in the debate space.

I will always disclose my decision and please feel free to postround me :)

I'm currently a junior at the University of Michigan and I debated at NSU for 4 years. Gonna keep this paradigm short and sweet.

- 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns and preferably terminal defense. I also prefer collapsing and weighing in 2nd rebuttal as well but that's not necessary. Weigh to make my decision simple.

- Speed is fine as long as you are being clear, and send speech docs if asked by the other team.

- For progressive arguments: I will evaluate theory. Read a K at your own discretion- be explicit and dumb it down if you do.

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot.

- Just please have fun, that's what this is all about. Keep the round lighthearted with jokes and humor

If you have any specific questions just ask me in the room.

my name is Andrew.

My pronouns are he/his

I am a senior at North Broward Prep

I have minimal experience in debate, but I can follow what you are saying and will do my best to write everything down.

For background, I am studying to become an expert in penguin studies. I will taking a gap year this fall to travel to Antarctica to study penguins in their natural habitat. After my gap year, I'll be attending Cambridge University in the UK to further my studies.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask!

I debated at NSU University School in Public Forum Debate for five years, where I amassed 12 bids and reached Quarters at TOC. I am currently a junior at Penn.

• Tech > Truth. I will vote for any argument that is extended, warranted, and weighed. Debate is a game. However, every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact) needs to be extended.
• Second rebuttal must frontline turns and defense you are going to collapse on.
• Defense is not sticky. Everything in final focus needs to be in summary.
• I prefer line-by-line instead of big picture in the second half of the debate.
• Signpost: I don’t need a roadmap if you signpost well.
• I can flow most speeds as long as you are clear.

Weighing:

• As a debater, I ran mostly structural violence arguments and weighing overviews. While I enjoy these types of debates, I think they need to be done well. I won’t assume this type of framework unless you give me a warrant.
• Only 3 types of weighing mechanisms: probability, time frame, and magnitude.
• Please do comparative weighing. Weighing your own arguments does not matter if it is not compared to how they weigh theirs. If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important.

Evidence:

• I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing. It is harder to misconstrue evidence.
• I won’t call for evidence unless it is contested by both teams. I consider it judge intervention.

Progressive Arguments:

• Disclosure is good; paraphrasing is bad. While these are my personal opinions, I won’t pick you up automatically if you don’t win the shell.
• Theory is intended to make the debate space more equitable, so don’t read frivolous theory.

Ask me any questions you may have before the round. You can also refer to Amanda Frank’s paradigm for similar preferences.