Norma J Smith Memorial Tournament 2021
2021 — NSDA Campus, OK/US
CX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
updated march ‘22
put me on the email chain: email@example.com
experience: debated 7 years in middle/high school policy for crossings in oklahoma city
1. be nice
2. have fun
3. do what you want, just do it well
i’m okay with speed, however, i can’t hear as well over a speaker, so either slow down a little bit or make sure to enunciate- i don’t want to miss anything!
none of my preferences affect my decision. the categories below reflect what i am most experienced in/what arguments i would be best at evaluating.
K- Dislike -----------------------------------------X Like
CP- Dislike -------------------------------------X—-- Like
DA- Dislike -------------------------------------X--- Like
T- Dislike ------------------------------X----------- Like
FW- Dislike ------------------------------------X----- Like
Theory- Dislike -----------------------X------------------ Like
Case Neg- Dislike ---------------------------------X-------- Like
mostly ran antiblackness, settler colonialism, and deleuze/guattari, sometimes baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and cap.
i will look at the framework debate first. keep your arguments consistent and clear. i feel like it often gets muddled because both sides forget that they must impact out and do comparative analysis with their standards. if there's not a role of the judge i will default to... a judge at a debate tournament. (if you want me to be a policymaker you gotta tell me) the aff gets to weigh itself against the alternative. i default to choosing the best option (util if no impact framing)- how i frame the ballot is up to y’all. lots of clash on the flow is appreciated.
love a good link debate. be specific! if you have more than one, it helps my flow if you number them. evidence indicts are cool. i have high standards for any k link, generic "you talk about/don't talk about X so you're guilty of X" is not particularly convincing unless it's dropped or severely undercovered.
the impact debate is so important! probability matters. have a decent timeframe for terminal impacts. anything long-term not very convincing, especially if the aff wins timeframe arguments for their impact. use ptm. (probability, timeframe, magnitude)
tell the story of how the alternative functions, and pls explain how each perm is a worse option than the alt. idk how i feel about utopian alt arguments because technically the aff is also guilty of utopianism. most of the time nobody really sits on it anyway, so do what you will with that information.
i’m not really picky about them except don’t read more than one with the same impact. pls have solid uniqueness evidence, i will read it if there's unresolved uq stuff. high standard for the link debate, there must be a reasonable way for the aff to cause the impacts.
can’t go wrong with a solid advantage cp. have a clear net benefit (i default to best option) and explain mutual exclusivity.
t is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. impact comparison is super important. having da's on it is cool. engage the opponent's arguments.
i see it mishandled often. there has to be a tangible risk of abuse, a reasonable interpretation, and supporting examples for me to want to vote on it.
policy affs should have solid internal link chains, explain what the aff actually does, who does it, who it affects, etc. explain why your solution is the best solution.
k affs should have an advocacy statement. the aff position shouldn't change mid-round. i have very high expectations for the internal link and solvency. explain who the aff is good for, why its a good idea, etc. same as before, explain why your solution is the best solution.
Hi! I’m an assistant coach for Crossings Christian and Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2020/2021, respectively. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.
I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.
There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:
- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.
- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.
Things I like:
- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!
- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.
- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.
Things I dislike:
- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.
- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.
- Ks without alts.
- Eugenics good
Email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Cool with everything, run what you want (yes even strange things like wipeout)
Fine with speed
Make sure you kick out of stuff right
Hi I'm Mitchell or Scotty, either work, I did 4 years of high school debate for Riverfield Country Day School. Competing at both the local and national level.
I currently debate for Michigan State as a junior.
I'm hesitant to name a specific "archetype" of judge because I find those don't give enough detail, but the closest to me would be something like offense-defense.
I come from small school OK, that being said I much prefer the national circuit style.
I really like evidence, warranted analysis of great ev is the best way to my ballot.
The funniest quote gets +.2 speaks (when appropriate)
Speed's perfectly fine.
I want to be on the Email chain, Scottyscott1424@gmail.com
Send a card doc after the round.
I don't care much for the formal dress convention in some circuits.
I won't do the work for you, don't just make a vague line about something, say it.
I really enjoy evidence, and love warranted analysis, assert that your ev is good and explain why.
I have read a little bit of everything, from an accelerationist econ aff to a soft left rhetoric aff to a hard right kagan international order aff. I will vote on pretty much anything, but I want the internal links and solvency explained. (Update, if your aff is non-inherent, but you read a card from a blog that is factually wrong, I will not vote on it) For K affs, explain your advocacy and make sure you are somewhat related to the topic. I frequently find at the end of the round the advocacy isn't well explained and I hold advocacies to the same standard I hold a traditional affs internal links.
Not the biggest fan of T debates, the counter interp probably matters more to me than most. Do the voters debate, I've both gone for and won on "yeah we're not topical but it doesn't matter" in the past, and the voters debate is why. Think about T like an "a priori" DA, you need to win the interp, standards, and voters, along with competing interps or them being stupid unreasonable to win T.
I default to reasonability but that's like a 51/49 thing and can be easily persuaded either way.
A fan, ADV CPs are a long time favorite. You probably need a net benefit absent a slayer solvency deficit on the affs internal links. I find theory more persuasive when you combine multiple issues, eg. CP "the USFG, ROK, DPRK and PRC should agree to unify the Koreas in exchange for the US leaving the peninsula and the PRC easing off the yellow sea." is probably a pretty abusive counterplan for utopian fiat, multi-actor fiat, and international fiat. Combining those is more persuasive than reading a blippy multi-actor fiat shell.
We've moved to the point condo will probably be a hard sell, but I've gone for condo before and have seen it voted on, so feel free to put it in the shell in the 2AC.
I default to no judge kick, but you tell me what to do.
I've run more DAs than I can probably remember. DAs that I really like, PTX, something with a direct case turn, or anything specific to aff (I don't mean spec link, like can only be run on that aff or area). For generic DAs, make sure you can explain the link, as well as answer alt causes. My favorite part of DA debate is the link level, I think this is where the most analysis is done in the round. The more specific the internal link is the better. My all-time favorite DA we wrote was a capital flight DA about Taiwanese semiconductors, don't be afraid to get micro with the DA. Also thumpers are underused as a viable 2AR strat. 2AC 1 should be case outweighs and turns the DA.
Please make sure you kick out of the DA right, if you concede uniqueness to kick out and the aff calls out they had a link turn you just gave them a free advantage and one you argued for earlier on the impact side.
Explain the alt or you'll have trouble convincing me to vote for you.
I'm well experienced in SetCol Lit and as such am will be a good judge for a team that is good with the K and a bad judge for teams that are bad with the K.
I have read Lacan, but not a ton of supporting authors, however, my psychology teacher and debate teacher were one and the same.
I probably know more about some lits, if you have questions feel free to ask
I tend to learn Neg on framework debates, that doesn't mean I don't like K-affs or vote for them, just that I generally learn towards scenario-planning. I find that the better interps are things like "The aff should defend a strategy for engaging in politics that can be actualized outside of the debate space" but normal T is fine and works fine too.
Debate is probably a game, doesn't mean the game has to be exclusionary towards others. I'll default to "The aff gets to weigh the impacts of the aff against the K" but you tell me what to do.
I was a 2A, so I generally default to what you would expect. But for specific remarks, I enjoy clash on theory debates, don't just read your shell and move on. The shell is supposed to give you an outline, but not to be read word for word. Theory debates aren't always reasons to reject the team, for example, a congressional backlash DA, how normal means works can be a theory debate that creates a reason for a No link or to guarantee a link. I won't vote on Aspec.
Bottom Level Stuff
I'm generally pretty open to debate how the debaters want to debate. Things I don't have patience for are sexism, racism, ableism, etc. and "progressive debate bad" arguing Ks are an invalid strat or speed is bad for comprehension is not super persuasive for me. (Note about speed, if you have a reason for a more conversational speed round, feel free to ask for one before the round, the other team should honor this, but trying to catch a team with either a speed K or speed theory when you didn't ask for no speed is not persuasive to me)
At the end of the debate if all you have is a solvency press, you are probably losing the debate, because the risk of the aff outweighs the lack of impact on the negative side, if you want the 2NR to be case, you better have a nice case turn combined with some defense.
if you have questions, feel free to ask before rounds and feel free to reach out post-round.
As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.
In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.
With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.