Damus Hollywood Invitational
2020 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
JV Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I do want to be on the email chain: email@example.com
tl;dr version: Currently a GA at Baylor. I debated mostly policy argument for 4 years in high school at Notre Dame under Christina Phillips, and 5 years in college at UNLV under Jacob Thompson reading only critical arguments. My view of debate is heavily influenced by Tyler Snelling and Darrian Carroll. I have dabbled in most areas of critical literature, but tended to lean towards the postmodern. I also enjoy good framework debates, but if you have me in a policy v policy round you have done your prefs incorrectly. I was a 2N my entire career.
I'm here to see good debates. I can't imagine ever giving a 30 to someone who followed my paradigm to the letter, and as such didn't change my view in some way. With that being said, these are the positions I find myself generally inserting myself most as a judge:
Framework in general - I think both sides are always cheating. I think debate is and has always been a game of who cheats best. If you are on either side of a K aff v framework debate do not assume I am your friend. To be clear I do draw the line of rhetorical cheating at the point at which you actively impede your opponent ability to debate that rise to the level of ethics challenges, such as but not limited to clipping.
Framework impacts. I think both fairness and education are things that can be articulated as impacts, but neither are in and of themselves. I tend to assume fairness is an internal link to education because I am more likely to buy education as an inherent impact. On the same note I think if the affirmative impact turns these questions it makes most of the flow irrelevant for me, and would expect a strategy to put substantial depth here.
Permutation debates. I don't know what a permutation is anymore when a K aff is involved, and I haven't for a long time. At this point I consider its existence in the 2ac a placeholder for a real argument that will come forth in the 1ar. Because of this I grant an amazing amount of leeway to the 2nr in answering it. I hate that this creates late breaking debates, so developing standards for competition and explicit definitions of the permutation early in the debate is more likely to earn you higher speaker points and make me more likely to hold the line on the later speeches.
I try to make sure I can draw lines between 2ar and 1ar arguments before submitting each decision.
I've probably both left out and unintentionally lied about things so definitely look at my actual judging record.
I'm two years out of high school debate and do not have in-depth knowledge of the topic. I debated for Notre Dame for 4 years and went to the NDCA and TOC.
I do not have a bias between traditional policy arguments and newer critical ones
Tech determines truth but truer arguments are easier to win so the importance of technical skill doesn't mean all arguments are equally strategic
Feel free to ask any me any questions before the round
Bottom line I know debate but not the topic and you should just do what you do best instead of worrying about adapting
Hey! I’m Maddie, my pronouns are they/them
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
NOTE: recent paradigm update as of January 2021 (updates to the "Policy v K" section); Update to Framework section as of February 2021; basic updates for Kentucky 2021
2 years at Gulliver Prep --- went for primarily policy arguments
2 years at Blue Valley Southwest --- primarily kritikal my junior year, very flex my senior year
Currently in my second year debating at the University of Kansas, previously at the University of Iowa
Currently coaching at Eagan High School, previously at CK McClatchy
------ I’m an American Studies major with a concentration in Indigenous studies and minoring in Gender Studies, if that’s something that matters to you
------ I primarily go for kritikal arguments in college, but that’s a personal preference
I worked at the JDI this summer, and have some familiarity with the topic, but not a ton. Last year, I judged around 80 rounds on the topic, primarily getting put in the back of clash debates.
TLDR: Do your thing, as long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in. Research should be a fun tool for you to explore new and interesting concepts, and debating is the manifestation of your process and progress in exploring new literature bases.
Prep Note: I am very close to adopting Tim Ellis' prep practices. I've seen a major increase in people taking way too much time in between prep, CX, sending docs, etc---I will try and be as sympathetic as I can, but my patience is growing thin.
First --- I think most people would characterize me as a “clash” judge, which I’m okay with. I’m down for a good policy throwdown, but I’m best in terms of feedback for K v Policy, Framework, and K v K debates (and they’re the debates I enjoy judging the most). My voting record is pretty even.
Second --- I very passionately situate myself as an educator in debate. What I mean is I place quite a bit of value on my role as an educator, not in how I decide debates necessarily, but rather how I give decisions. I have previously held that I will put in as much effort into judging you as you do debating, but I have since realized that I tend to put in maximum effort into judging debates and give substantive feedback. I flow debates very carefully and care deeply about the post-round commentary and feedback I give, so be prepared for the RFD rants I have grown to enjoy.
Given that, I think the pedagogical value of this activity is tremendous and believe it should be acknowledged as such. If I deem that you have engaged in a practice that harms the community (read: don’t be racist, transphobic, misogynistic, or otherwise), I will not hesitate to dock your speaks, contact tournament directors and/or coaches, or simply end the round early as I deem necessary.
Some educators that I respect highly and have influenced my beliefs as an educator include: Joshua Michael, Alaina Wahlberg, Flynn Makuch, Brian Rubaie, Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Larry Dang, Yao Yao Chen, Kristiana Baez, Eu Giampetruzzi, Azja Butler, Squid Monteith, Derek Hilligoss---honestly this list obvi isn't exhaustive but I think you get the point.
A caveat – this is not a referendum on my argumentative alignments or predispositions relative to these folks, but rather that I respect and admire their approach to judging, coaching, and educational development.
Third (this is important) --- Because I think debate is necessarily educational, I encourage debaters to be intentional in making arguments. Including arguments for the sake of including them is asinine and largely frustrating.
For everyone/my musings about framework---
---I have been told I evaluate framework debates perhaps a little bit differently than some other folks. I think there are a couple of things that matter to me that make this true:
1. Competing interpretations are more important to me than most people. This isn't true of all Kritikal AFFs, but if theAFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable by these affirmatives (there are exceptions, i.e. Sylvia Wynter's thesis of sociogenesis).
---that said, if you read a performance studies AFF or an AFF about aesthetics, the threshold for solvency certainly changes, but this is a thought I've had recently.
2. Both teams should identify what 2AC offense is intrinsic to the AFF vs the C/I, there are plenty of debates I watch in which the 2AR goes for a C/I that doesn't solve their impact turn to T, which is not persuasive.
3. Debate can certainly be characterized as a game, but I think asserting it is *only* a game is a gross reduction of the value of this activity. Debate is a lot of things for a lot of different people, and winning debate is a game (to me) does not constitute an auto-win. This argument is simply a framing device, not an internal link.
4. Internal links matter more to me than others and I find this portion of the debate regularly is underdebated.
On the negative ---
----I am generally of the belief that your only strategy against kritikal affirmatives should not be exclusively limited to framework. K AFFs are written in such a way that either they have a fantastic and clear angle against framework starting from the 1AC, or they do not. You should make the decision of what you put in the 1NC based on your interpretation of the affirmative and predictions of how AFF arguments could be deployed (this is largely why I resent the generic and reactionary T/Cap 1NC).
----Case debating is underused vs K AFFs. You should identify the thesis claim or theory of power the 1AC posits and answer that explicitly. I find that many people have the right idea of including big solvency/presumption pushes, but fail to answer the “big picture” thesis claims present in the 1AC that are usually leveraged as offense against most negative arguments.
----Clash is very persuasive – particularly when articulated in these ways:
1. Predictability is probably my favorite internal link. Predictable clash is good and can only be determined through resolutional wording. We rely on the resolution as a pre-season and pre-tournament research guide that allows us to determine what is and is not included in research areas under the resolution.
2. Contextualize it to the topic. Why is clash over the resolution good—what pedagogical, transformative, or reflexive potential does it have. I these defenses of research to be personalized and about debate as opposed to spill-up arguments about enacting change – i.e. how does clash over the resolution change the ways we engage with the controversy surrounding the resolution rhetorically, educationally, and politically.
3. Turns case arguments are your friend, especially if the AFF is a critique of debate’s research practices. Comparative internal link debating and impact calc are super important here --- contextualizing clash as a pre-requisite to actualizing the telos of the AFF, i.e. the epistemic shift the 1AC attempts to resolve.
----Fairness (the moment you’ve all been waiting for)
1. If it’s your thing and you’re confident you can explain how and why it’s an intrinsic good, that is indeed your prerogative and you can do you. That said, I do tend to be persuaded by arguments that fairness is an internal link [to clash, probably].
2. Even if you’re going for fairness, you need to answer AFF offense against your model of debate/content of research you mandate. Saying “debate is a game” and T is a “procedural question” doesn’t mean you are shielded from AFF offense against the content/research produced as a consequence of “fairness”
----AT: Their Offense
1. If the AFF is a critique of debate or research practices, they get to weigh the AFF vs T. I can probably be convinced otherwise, but I largely have been unconvinced and annoyed at this assertion.
2. Flag/explicitly answer 2AC offense, its really awkward when you don’t.
----My apparent “hot take” is that I think there are few scenarios in which it is strategic and beneficial to include both a topical version of the AFF and switch side in the 2NR. Usually, there is a blatant reason why either one solves the AFF, and you should pick that in the 2NR. The TVA and switch side are not the ‘you drop it you lose’ argument that you think it is, but should instead be used as impact defense to offense against your interpretations exclusion of the AFF’s particular scholarship or whatever it may.
On the affirmative---
----I already talked about being intentional, but I want to emphasize this for those who read kritikal affirmatives. The 1AC should be a complete and cohesive argument in some capacity, I am not particular about the form through which this is conveyed (i.e. performance or scholarship or both), but I think many kritikal affirmatives lack an argumentative telos that is largely frustrating. The AFF should not be an 8 minute framework pre-empt, just as you should avoid including evidence that is not useful to you as offense. (this is a similar frustration to that I hold of policy AFF’s with K-pre empts and framing contentions)
----You don’t need an advocacy statement, but if you do not have one, I should know what your argument is prior to CX of the 1AC.
----Prior to writing the AFF, you should decide if your angle vs fwk relies on offense that is intrinsic to the speech act of the 1AC or your counter-interpretation as a model of debate/research. You should make this distinction clear in the 2AC and establishes a threshold of what solvency mechanisms you have to win in order to access your framework offense.
----Contextualize the C/I to the 1NC’s offense, anything the C/I doesn’t solve you should impact turn. (Aside: I really enjoy a good predictability impact turn)
----I appreciate those who show me that they understand the academic context of the 1AC beyond the evidence included --- that includes history, examples, references to authors, etc.
----1AR/2AR consistency is important --- you should be using similar language to explain your offense
----Please defend things. Stop trying to avoid talking about the AFF, if you’ve read your lit base and are confident in your level of explanation, I don’t see a reason why you should be responding to every 1AC CX question with a variation of “we don’t do that,” especially when you clearly do.
----ROB/ROJ arguments are very helpful for 2AR packaging and framing, you should use them
----2-3 well developed, carded DA’s to FW > shotgunning 8 DA’s that say the same thing
----2AR impact turn strategies need defense
Policy v K:
----I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship
----I read quite a bit of critical scholarship, yet my affinity for such arguments mean that not only will I abstain from using my personal understandings of certain concepts to fill in gaps for you, but I will be relatively grumpy if I find that you either expect me to do so or are under/misexplaining your theory
----Framework probably matters to me a lot more than most. I think about debate a lot through its mechanics, not through its content. As such, in clash debates I tend to start with the framework debate as a filter through which I evaluate the rest of the offense on the flow.
On the neg:
----The 2NR should always extend framework as a framing argument for how I evaluate consequences, otherwise you’ll likely take the L to a 2AR that moralizes about extinction. Explain what winning the framework means in context of the permutation/evaluating link arguments, I need contextualization and instruction of what you think framework does for you.
----You don’t need to extend 10 trillion link arguments, 1-2 is fine, impact them out and include turns case arguments and specific contextualizations to the AFF
----2NC link work should pull lines from 1AC evidence, CX moments, etc – talk about the AFF as much as possible
----If you’re not going to the case debate, tell me why it doesn’t matter
----Presumption is fun
----I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense
----Theories of power/structural claims mean nothing in a vacuum – you have to apply them where they matter and tell me what it means to win your theory of power
----I judge a lot of these debates and find that so many 2NR's overstretch themselves here. The 2NR should not be a condensed version of the 2NC, rather, you should make strategic decisions about whether to go for an alternative OR framework heavy strategy depending on the 1AR's decision
On the AFF:
----Like I said, framework matters a lot more to me, and you should use it to your advantage. The most persuasive way to articulate FW on the AFF in front of me is in the context of competition. Most framework debates devolve into weighing the AFF vs not weighing the AFF, which is always messy. Instead, contextualize your framework offense to how competition gets established and how that implicates link generation/alt solvency.
----The 2AC permutation explanation should contextualize the permutation to all of the links, explaining how you resolve it
----Permutations don't *need* net benefits, but you cannot go for a permutation without a net benefit without having won framework. Permutations are either a test of competition or tools that lower the threshold for link defense that can generate a persuasive 2AR that goes for the permutation + link defense + alt offense + heavy impact calc.
----“Extinction outweighs” is not a defense of extinction rhetoric. You have to defend your research/scholarship by defending its academic/pedagogical value, because most of the time they are not critiquing securitization/extinction rhetoric in a vacuum, but rather the aff’s use of extinction rhetoric in an academic space for whatever reason.
----Asserting that something is a link of omission does not a link of omission make.
----Your FWK interpretation shouldn’t be “you don’t get K’s,” I’m far more persuaded by predictable clash style arguments like I explained above. That said, I think predictability and competition based framework offense is incredibly persuasive if you explain why it matters. Framework should always be in the 2AR, competition based offense makes winning a permutation a lot easier as well.
----If the K makes a structural claim or theory of power, you should read defense to it but also offer an alternate theory that explains [the thing]
----If you read a big-stick AFF, I find that it can be strategic to impact turn alternatives that deconstruct material state structures (heg, cap). Similarly, if you read a big-stick AFF, the likelihood I am persuaded by a permutation or link turn is LOW, especially if the K is a functional impact turn to the AFF. Your time is much better spent impact turning the K and reading more cards here.
----If you read a soft-left AFF, do not read Barma or scenario-planning based offense, it makes 0 sense
----I’m not a fan of the 1AC structure that’s like [4 card advantage] [17 K pre-empts], nor am I a fan of the 2AC card dump vs 1 off strategies --- you should be thinking about how your aff interacts with the K and contextualizing 1AC evidence/scholarship vs the K
----Oh my god why do so many people have a libidinal commitment to reading the Delgado evidence. It's garbage and there are probably academics that write specific defenses of your specific strategy of reform, read THOSE instead.
----I have judged a few debates now where the 2AC reads a link turn and an impact turn to the K. Please refrain from double-turning yourself.
K v K:
----If you have an advocacy statement, I generally agree that you get permutations, but I can be convinced otherwise
----I will be very impressed if you exemplify knowledge of how your literature base interacts with the other literature base your debating, most of the time scholars engage with one another by name and discuss their theories co-constitutively, and if you have read those theorizations and can explain them well I will be very happy.
----Comparative debating about structural claims/theories of power is really important here
----If you use the phrase “Marxist dudebros” you might get a giggle out of me
Separate note about settler colonialism because I find myself in the back of these debates often:
----I agree almost whole-heartedly with Josh Michael’s paradigm here
----I have found that some people attempt to overadapt and go for settler colonialism in front of me, for whatever reason. If you aren’t familiar with the literature base and read this just for the sake of it, I will be really frustrated and it will probably be counterproductive for you to do this. That said, if this is a literature base that you are wanting to become more familiar with, I am more than willing to offer feedback, resources, and any other advice that might be helpful for you to continue exploring!
----For what its worth, I find myself saying “you should have read a Tiffany King card” quite a bit in my RFD’s and post-round comments
----I usually think that settler colonialism debates should be one-off debates, most importantly because I feel that it’s difficult to make a well-developed settler colonialism shell that is 3 cards
----GBTL/Material Decol > everything else
----Paperson doesn’t say legalism good. If you read this I will be sad. Very sad.
----“Ontology framing bad” doesn’t disprove the structural claim of settler colonialism
----You should be reading indigenous scholars. Geez.
----Stop calling it the "ontology debate"
In the unlikely event that you find yourself in a policy throwdown with me in the back: Theory
----SLOW DOWN – I need to catch interps
----I probably lean neg on condo
----Dispo is beta condo
----Random procedurals are a waste of time, make arguments that pass the makes sense test please.
----Surprisingly I like these debates. Contextualize your framing arguments to the DA and establish a threshold of what you have to win in order to win the framing debate and tell me how that should filter the CP/DA
----CP’s can do whatever they want, but well debated theory arguments can be persuasive to me
----Solvency deficits need impacts??? Unsure why this isn’t a thing that’s been happening recently.
----I’ll judge kick if you tell me to. I won’t if the 2ar tells me why I shouldn’t.
----You should explain anything legally intricate to me as though I'm a literal toddler (especially the courts, courts are complicated)
----Sure, the more specific your link ev is the better. Not the biggest fan of recycled politics disads you stole from the college wiki
----I judge too many debates where the 2NR just doesn't extend an internal link. You should probably do that.
Closing rants and pet peeves:
----Don’t use language/jargon that isn’t found in your literature base. Academic diction isn’t something you can mix and match to apply to your argument unless the evidence your reading uses that particular language. If your evidence doesn’t say “communities of care,” “ontology,” or “social death,” don’t describe things as that.
----“Lengthy” overviews are the bane of my existence. I cannot remember the last time I gave a K 2NC with an overview, everything you do there can be done on the line by line. When I say lengthy I mean literally anything more than 25 seconds.
----I'll doc your speaks by .2 if you give a stand up 1AR.
----I think the tech/truth distinction is usually regressive, but if asked, I would probably say I am more tech over truth, but always within reason. If you assert something is true or fact that I know is just blatantly false and is not substantiated by any evidence, I will not vote for it.
----Be respectful of everyone’s time. I am sympathetic to tech issues, but please make sure you aren’t having to send 3 different documents because you forgot to hit reply all, someone isn’t on the email chain, or you attached the wrong document.
----Please don’t call me “judge,” lol. You can call me Maddie or Mads or just like don’t refer to me.
----I hate the CX line of questioning that's like "if we win x,y,z does that mean we win the debate?" most of the time you're just asking "if we win the debate do we win the debate" and it gets you nowhere
----If you seem like you’re genuinely enjoying the activity, being respectful, and not taking things too seriously, chances are I’ll reward you with high speaks. My favorite debates to judge are those in which debaters are having fun!
If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or otherwise, feel free to e-mail me and I’ll try and respond as soon as I can!
Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).
Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.
please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com
I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.
I think LD = short policy.
Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.
Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.
Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.
Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.
DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.
Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.
Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.
Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.
Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)
Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.
If I happen to be judging PF:
Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.
Hey, so apparently sending evidence without tags is a thing now. Don't do it in front of me. I'll cap your speaks at 28.
from another paradigm I recently saw re: high school debate -
If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.
I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.
I'm currently a phd candidate and I view debate as an educator and also activist/organizer. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.
i've been in debate since fall 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.
you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy. don't run what you think I want to hear.
Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.
Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2020, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.
Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.
I don't think I've ever voted a team down b/c theory. an arg yes, but not a team:
I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.
I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.
Affs I don't like:
I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.
I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.
Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.
Negs I don't like:
Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.
Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.
Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.
I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.
if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!
My name is Yoshikage Kira. I'm 33 years old. My house is in the northeast section of Morioh, where all the villas are, and I am not married. I work as an employee for the Kame Yu department stores, and I get home every day by 8 PM at the latest. I don't smoke, but I occasionally drink.
I'm in bed by 11 PM, and make sure I get eight hours of sleep, no matter what. After having a glass of warm milk and doing about twenty minutes of stretches before going to bed, I usually have no problems sleeping until morning. Just like a baby, I wake up without any fatigue or stress in the morning. I was told there were no issues at my last check-up.
I'm trying to explain that I'm a person who wishes to live a very quiet life. I take care not to trouble myself with any enemies, like winning and losing, that would cause me to lose sleep at night. That is how I deal with society, and I know that is what brings me happiness. Although, if I were to fight I wouldn't lose to anyone
Debated at Downtown Magnets High School for 4 years
Currently debating for Cal State Fullerton
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: You can read anything you want in front of me.
- Quality > Quantity
- Spreading is fine, but be clear
- Don't clip cards, if there is evidence of clipping I will end the round and give a win to the other team
- Flashing/emailing isn't prep but please don't take forever
- If you're reading theory slow down a bit, and tell me if you want it on a new sheet
- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but they still have to be impacted out
- I'll weigh a performance the same as evidence, I will flow it too
- Debate is whatever you tell me it is (If the negative reads framework and claims debate is a game..and the aff has no response..then it's a game)
- I have read arguments like death good, I think these are legitimate arguments. Don't shy away from running weird things in front of me. As long as you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic you're fine.
Traditional Affs: I like comprehensive, well thought out advantages compared to 7 advantages that all end in nuke war or something. Make sure you give me some type of framing in the 1AC so that I know how I should weigh the aff vs the negs off case, and always use your framing against their off case (please).
Kritikal Affs: I won't vote on it just because you read it. The most important thing for me is an explanation of how the affirmative relates to the topic and how the particular survival strategy/method/epistemology/etc is important for debate. If there is no connection to the topic, I will not shy away from pulling the trigger on T. Kritikal affs that connect to your identity are cool too, but don't make it seem like you're using the oppression of x group for a ballot. If I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. An advocacy statement of some sort is probably good here.
Performance: The most important thing about performances is that they should be used as arguments. If the 1AC has a performance of some sort, the 2AC should use that performance offensively. If the performance gets lost, I'll probably be skeptical of the 2AR bringing it back up. For the negative, you should press them on the performance in some way. Arguments about performances being bad for debate are legit, but make sure they have an actual argument behind them. For example, "this isn't theatre, this is debate" is not a good answer to a performance.
Kritikal Affs vs the K: The aff should always perm the kritik. There's a good chance that your theories aren't 100% mutually exclusive. I don't buy the "this is a method debate so no perms" argument, but if it goes conceded coming out of a 1AR/2AR then I will evaluate it. The aff should also explain why the perm is necessary and why the negative's theory alone fails. For the negative, you should be winning a strong link to the affirmative and a reason why the alternative is mutually exclusive to the advocacy.
Framework vs the K aff: I'm not biased towards the affirmative in these debates (despite my history of running kritikal arguments). I do think framework is valuable, and seeing people debate the way they believe debate should be is always fun. If there is no TVA I'm more sympathetic to voting aff, but if there's no answer to the TVA I'm definitely voting neg. Fairness is an okay standard but I prefer arguments along the lines of truth testing, stasis args, and deliberation. Tailoring your framework to have benefits like grassroots activism and legalism good arguments are also persuasive. Framework is a definitely a viable strategy in front of me against a kritikal affirmative, but make sure there are also arguments that engage the case. For the aff, "They are excluding us" isn't really an answer to framework (please don't make this argument), but proving why their frameowork is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. is good offense against the framework. I prefer affirmatives to defend their model of debate. Why should we be able to talk about things only tangentially related to the topic? Why is posing a hypothetical policy implementation bad for debate? These are questions I'll probably be thinking of as the 2AC answers the framework flow. Disads to their model are good leverage, but make sure to answer every standard on the flow. Also, counter interps are nice.
Kritiks: For Kritiks please have multiple clear links to the affirmative. A generic link that you have can always be contextualized to the aff, so try to contextualize each link to the affirmative. A specific link should also be contextualized against the affirmative. Please explain what your alternative is and have a framing that doesn't contradict the alternative. I find that the key arguments to a criticism are usuallly framing/framework, link, impact, alternative, permutation. If a team concedes a framing, I'm most likely voting for the other team. For example, if the Aff reads framing about how specific scenario analysis is good for policy making and broad structural criticisms are bad, I would say they are ahead of the K debate (given that the negative concedes their framing). I'm also okay with teams kicking the alternative and going for the links as case turns, but you must tell me to kick it. I won't kick it for you. Also, "fiat is illusory" isn't really a winning argument. Also, please explain the K. Even if I heard your criticism before, a shallow explanation of the K won't help you win the flow.
Disadvantages: For DAs, I prefer specific links. Internal links are appreciated, but not necessary. Recent DAs are probably better than older ones, make sure the uniqueness and answers to uniqueness are recent for these debates. I think the uniqueness can overwhelm the link in some cases, and I am open to impact turning if you persuade me (nuke war good? Sure why not). Disadvantages should have impact calculus and turn the case in some way. The affirmative should explain why the disadvantage uniqueness overwhelms the link, why there's no link, no impact, etc. Make sure to spend time to make arguments on the disadvantage because if it's undercovered then I'll probably vote for it. Impact framing/calculus is really important, especially when the disadvantage has an impact of higher magnitude (like war, extinction) compared to the affirmative. Explain why your impact is more significant than the Affirmative's impact.
Counter plans/Advocacy: Make sure the counter plan has a net benefit, and tell me what the net benefit is. Advantage CPs are also cool. Consult CPs are legit. If there is a link to the DA and the CP clearly avoids that link, I'll probably vote neg on the counterplan. For Kritikal affs I enjoy counter advocacy debates, still explain the net benefit though. I'm not particularly fond of counterplan theory, but I will vote for it if I feel it's a winning argument.
Topicality: I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).
Theory: I will vote for it. Just make sure you slow down a lot cause I want to catch what you're saying in the standards. 1AR/2AR with only Condo is viable, but if you're just repeating your standards then I'd say don't. I don't really lean aff or neg when it comes to condo/dispo debates, but I will say that for these debates both teams need to have a clear interpretation that makes sense. The aff should probably say 1 or 2 condo worlds, while the neg should probably argue their specific number of conditional worlds that they read as a counter interpretation. I lean neg on CP theory, I generally think the negative gets anything outside of the affirmative. It's up for debate if a PIC/PIK constitutes being outside of the aff.
Speaker Points: Speaker awards make this activity a little less shitty so I will try to give high speaks.