La Salle Forum Invitational 2020
2020 — NSDA Campus, PA/US
Open Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Add me to the chain: email@example.com
Feel free to debate with arguments that you feel are the best; however, it would be silly to assume this doesn't come with certain caveats. I have minimal experience judging on this new topic so I urge you to explain your jargon.
Speed is fine, but I will say clear when it becomes incomprehensible. Debaters often tend to spew through their analytics within their rebuttal speeches but be cognizant of the fact that I will flow on paper so anything that doesn't make it on to my flow will not be considered within my RFD.
The quality of your evidence matters, but won’t win or lose you a round unless somebody in the round makes this happen. You certainly don’t need evidence to make every single argument. I want to be on the email chain so I can read evidence after the round if need-be.
K's are okay, but make sure to remember case.
La Salle College High School '15
University of Notre Dame '19
Debate Experience: Debated for four years in high school, qualified to the TOC and was in semis of the NDCA my senior year.
General:Read whatever you think you will be able to debate the best in the round. One of my least favorite things as a debater was when judges thought they were more important than the debaters, and said "spreading means you lose" or "I won't even listen to your k." Does this mean you should spew words to the point that I can't understand you and read morally reprehensible arguments? Of course not. It means read whatever arguments you want and Ill listen. I can flow speed and I'll yell clear if you aren't.
Aff: The aff should defend something, as in have some sort of plan or advocacy that the negative is able to clash with. I'm fine with affs that end in extinction and just as fine with affs that end in some sort of structural violence impact. No plan affs will be explained more below.
Neg: Debate the case. I love good and warranted out case debate. Attack their internal links and uniqueness arguments just as much, if not more, than you attack their impact scenarios. Most affirmative advantages are poorly constructed and can be easily picked apart with a bit of decent research and debating.
Topicality: I didn't go for T very much against policy affs, but this was more out of a lack of skill on my own part than a dislike for the argument. I think you clearly need to prove that they explode limits or skew your ground for debate to win the topicality debate. I hate T debates that get into case lists where each team is trying to prove their list includes two or three more/fewer affs than the other team's. Sit more on your internal links and give specific examples rather than trying to rattle off as many affs as you can.
Dis-ads: Yes obviously fine and good. The aff should attack all portions of the disadvantage, especially the internal link. Impact defense is obviously important, but there are usually weaker parts to the DA that can be exposed.
Counterplans: If you're going for a cp in the 2nr and the aff has solvency deficits, please don't tell me about how you get 100 percent risk of solving the case. Instead, explain how the affirmative's solvency deficits are outweighed by your disadvantage. I don't want to be sitting there after the debate trying to sort out how I should weigh two solvency deficits against some risk of a da. If you're going to read a cheating CP be prepared for the theory debate. The aff is 99 percent on the side of truth in these sorts of debates so be prepared to defend why stealing their ground was fair. I am most persuaded by actor cps, advantage cps, and PICs.
Kritiks: The K is also fine. I am much more familiar with Reps Ks or Neolib than I am with Lacan or Baudrillard. That being said I am familiar with almost every K in debate so just explain your argument and how it interacts with the affirmative. I have to be able to thoroughly explain to the affirmative why they lost if I am to vote negative on the K, so the work should be done in the 2nr. Turns case analysis on the K makes the 2nr so much easier. Framework is usually a wash unless one team drops it, so give the 2nr as if you assume you're going to lose the framework debate (Hint: even if statements).
No Plan Affs and Framework: Anybody who debated me knows that I went for framework a lot against no plan affs, but I think that both sides can win this debate. For the aff, you need to play more defense to help you win. Having offense against the state and normative policy making is obviously necessary, but playing defense against dialogue or limits is just as valuable. I also think most no plan affs defend waaaay too much in terms of an interpretation of the topic. Saying "CI: Direction of the topic" just invites the neg to tee off on limits standards. Having an interpretation that is somehow grounded in your affirmative and how it relates to the topic means that you don't have to defend infinite affirmatives. I also do believe that the aff must have an interpretation so the negative can garner offense against the vision of debate the affirmative promotes, although a straight impact turn route in the 2ar can also be persuasive. For the neg, I am not going to be persuaded by your fairness standards generally. However, I am much more persuaded by using internal links like limits and dialogue to explain how the education you could have accessed in the debate was ruined by the affirmative. Use defense!! Make arguments like topical version of the aff and state redeemable. Allowing the aff to get away with hammering home that the state is irredemable is going to make the 2nr nearly impossible.
Have fun and e-mail me with any questions at firstname.lastname@example.org!
Email chain please! email@example.com
Pittsburgh Central Catholic '20
University of Pittsburgh '24 (not debating)
I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales.
TL;DR: You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.
I try really hard not to look at the speech doc. Please be clear when you are speaking because if I miss it, it's not going on my flow.
I think that almost all arguments are conducive to learning in debate. I think that adjusting to a judge's argument preference is bad because not only does it force someone to read an argument that they aren't comfortable going for but it also predetermines the round simply by my being there.
That being said, there are arguments that do not belong in debate and if run, will result in a loss and as few speaks as possible (i.e. racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism good).
If you are facing a team who is clearly new at debate, don't be rude. I will be more inclined to vote against you and/or try to find a reason to vote against you. If I can't (which is usually the case), my disdain will show in your speaks.
Please learn how to use your computer. I know this sounds strange but the amount of time wasted sending and saving speech docs is annoying and drags out the debate.
Cathedral Prep: 2013-2017
Naval Academy: 2017-present
I’m a big fan of this activity we have here in policy debate. With that being said, do what you do best, forget the rest.
Disadvantages: Link will always be evaluated first before uniqueness. Solid link evidence and analysis can break the tie in sketchy uniqueness situations like we have with politics currently. That being said, internal link chains still matter, and a causal explanation of how exactly x leads to y would be cool. Link turns are underutilized as are impact turns.
-I get it, Aff’s won't have answers to every nuanced politics, or small and jank REM DA. Smart arguments sometimes go further than evidence. Be aware. The grimy Rocky Balboa over the robotic Ivan Drago any day.
Counterplans: I lean negative on questions of conditionality, but never really got the whole 15-plank jazz. They might solve but chances are the neg is just using it to screw with you. Keep calm and carry on. Not going to judge kick until authorized.
Critiques: Let the dog off the chain. My background might point you otherwise, but these are enjoyable debates to partake in and watch. Links will be evaluated first, followed by the impact. Links of omission are weak, but I still think well-researched k links can be found against almost any affirmative implementing a plan. Winning the alternative debate isn’t a deal breaker, though the negative must prove we are better off by not doing the plan. Perms need to be more fleshed-out than just “do both.” The political may have been ceded. K’s of representations aren’t great. After the link, which the negative probably will get, this debate comes down to framing, (consequentialism vs. deontology/epistemology). In Cap and Security debates impact turns can and should be used by the affirmative, but in identity debates it really comes down to the question of ontology and the permutation.
Topicality: Clash is the ultimate impact to limits. It’s just like debating a disadvantage. Win the link, win the impact.
Clash debates: Aff's don't need a plan, but being tangential to the topic is preferable for all involved. When going against a critical affirmative the negative should have something more than T/FW in the 1NC. Diversify strategy, research the literature. There are links to every aff. Guilty as charged for going for T a bit, but debates are much more rewarding and educational when teams meet each other head on.
With that being said, the negative should use the TVA like a counter plan, with fairness/education as the net benefit followed by substantive answers on case that also act as a net benefit to the TVA.
Cross-ex should be a civilized cage-match.
I respect the hustle.