Last changed on
Sat February 12, 2022 at 7:18 AM EDT
I attended the TOC in 3 of my years of HS policy debate. Now I'm a dad hoping my kids develop an interest in this wonderful activity that hones and sharpens the mind. I strive to be tabula rasa, but--
Overall:
Win the nitty gritty, but don't underestimate the power of good storytelling. Do good risk analysis. Cut through the noise and let me know what's important. It's your job to tell me what's important. <--2A and 2N take notice!
I generally will only read a card after a round if that card has been contested and it is important. I value the ability of a debater to articulate an idea using their own words.
I've been out of the activity for many years. I'm not ready for serious spreading. Sign post clearly.
Let’s mimic an in person round and keep cameras on.
If you have any real world issues affecting the round that require accommodation, like you need to keep your camera off, bad wifi, tech issues, etc message me immediately. I want the round to be an inclusive environment and don’t want the real world to impact the round.
K (applies only to certain divisions of policy debate):
I’ve only seen a handful of K rounds so far. K did not exist when I was a kid. (I literally learned about K on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-te7QyiPlE)
For me, K is a voting issue *IF* you’re explicitly giving me some framing in rebuttals on how it’s a voting issue and explain the framework. If there is no framing and framework in rebuttals, I have trouble treating K as a voting issue by default and would use a policy framework, treat it as a counterplan, and vote on the utilitarian net benefits of plan vs K alternative. It’s your burden to give me the K framework and frame it for me in rebuttals.
Speaker points:
- - Go point by point over the opposing team’s arguments and directly clash with them (as opposed to just reading a pre-prepared brief on a contention without even referencing what the opposing team has argued.) This applies to all rebuttals and to parts of 2AC and 2NC. Even 1NC has an opportunity to clash with the case contentions directly.
- - Notice how this PF debater cites her opponent’s arguments before giving her own numbered responses (starting at 30:29): https://youtu.be/MUnyLbeu7qU?t=1795 That is how you’re supposed to directly clash. A flow of the round would show clash like this (notice no dropped arguments): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DyCoxFGGMV7lLdbNstjgOD-814sY_1dU/view?usp=sharing
- - Don’t drop important arguments made by the other team. Feel free to drop arguments strategically but only if it is intentional. A team that has mastered flowing will naturally be better at direct clash (and will win more often). I encourage you to submit your flow sheets of the round to me. I’ll give you constructive feedback.
- - Cards are great, but debates are won with arguments. Focus on coming up with arguments that directly clash and respond to what was said. I value analytical arguments made using your own words. Reading off of briefs should only be happening in the earlier speeches.
- - As the debate goes further into rebuttals, deepen your explanation of what should be a voting issue and why. <-esp 2N and 2A
- - As the rebate goes further into rebuttals, deepen your explanation of why you’re winning as a whole. Weave together all the issues in the entire round. <-esp 2N and 2A
