Arr, ye scurvy landlubbers! Gather ‘round the campfire, fer I be spinnin’ ye a yarn 'bout high school debate, pirate-style. So hoist the Jolly Roger, sharpen yer cutlasses, and let’s weigh anchor on this here debate sea!

Title: “The Great Debate Booty Showdown”

Arr, me hearties! Welcome to theHigh School Debate Ship, where young buccaneers clash like thunderin’ cannons over matters grand and trivial. Our topic today: “Be it resolved that treasure maps be replaced with GPS coordinates.” Now, let’s set sail, savvy?

“Avast, ye scallywags! Listen well, for I say this: Treasure maps be as outdated as a barnacle-covered hull. GPS be the compass of the modern age! No more decipherin’ cryptic clues—just follow the blinking dot to yer booty. Arr, progress awaits!”

“Arr, hold yer horses, Corsair! Maps be the soul of adventure! GPS be but a soulless automaton. Where’s the romance in punchin’ numbers into a gadget? Give me parchment, ink, and a quill any day. X marks the spot, and me heart sings!”

“Blackbeard, ye cling to nostalgia like barnacles to a ship. What say ye to lost maps, faded ink, and squintin’ at tiny screens? GPS be precise as a surgeon’s blade!”

“Aye, Corsair, but what of the thrill? The wind in yer hair, the salt spray on yer face? GPS be cold as a dead fish. Maps be tales whispered by the sea herself!”

“Listen, ye landlubbers! GPS be efficient, but maps be magic. They tell stories of buried chests, ghostly pirates, and forbidden coves. Let’s not trade wonder for convenience!”

“Arr, Corsair, ye’ve a point, but maps be our legacy. They be ink-stained dreams, passed down from one generation to the next. GPS? Bah! Give me parchment or give me Davy Jones!”

“Debate judges, me hearties, weigh the scales. Will ye choose the cold precision of GPS or the salty romance of maps? The decision be yers. But remember, whether ye be Corsair or Blackbeard, we’re all pirates sailin’ the same debate seas.”

And there ye have it, me mateys! The Great Debate Booty Showdown—where words be the cannons, and ideas be the treasure. Now, raise yer tankards, sing a shanty, and may the best debater win!

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

KU '26

Assistant coach for Washburn Rural and Greenhill

I will judge solely on the technical debating done and will avoid intervening. As I judge more debates, I continue to vote on arguments I vehemently disagree with, but were executed well on a technical level. The only requirement for all debaters is that an argument has a claim and a warrant. This means a few things:

- I will decide debates based on my flow, but do not care whether you go for the fiat K, politics, or warming good. The main caveat is my bar for an argument is claim and warrant*, the absence of the latter will make it easier to discount or refute. I would prefer strategies reflective of the literature with good evidence, but debate is a game so you do you.

*If you say only "no US-China war" and the other team concedes it, that is functionally meaningless. If you say "no US-China war, interdependence and diplomacy" that holds more relevance if dropped, BUT not as much as you'd think given it was not a complete thought. The logical progression of this example is that you should fully flesh out your arguments.

- I will read evidence out of interest during the debate, but it will not influence my decision until the debaters make it matter. This can be through establishing a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and then naming certain authors/relevant cards for my decision. If a metric is never set, I favor better highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness. Argument made analytically can hold similar weight to evidence if warranted and smart.

- The last thing that will boost you chances of winning is clear judge instruction. Flag your clear pieces of offense, dropped concessions, and say where I should start my decision. This also means when extending a claim and a warrant, explain the implication of winning an argument.

- I will not vote on anything external to the debate such as personal attacks, receipts, prefs, or ad-homs. Ethical/external issues should be settled outside of the debate.

- The only caveat to me deciding technically and offense-defense is cowardice and cheap-shots. I will not vote on hidden-SPEC and am very willing to give new answers. Similar ones like floating PIKs also probably don't meet the bar of a complete argument. If there is uncertainty make it a real argument...

That said here are some of my debate thoughts that could shape your strategy:

- For K-AFFs, it makes far more sense to go for a form based impact turn, rather than a content one or a counter-interpretation.

- For framework, contextualize your offense and defense to the debate/case you are debating or just go for fairness.

- Performative contradictions, when going for the K/the 1NC is multiple worlds, matter a lot to me and probably implicate your framework arguments.

- The fiat K/interpretations that zero the 1AC make more sense to me than trying to make causal links to the plan and huge alternatives because the perm double bind becomes truer.

- I have never seen an AFF reasonability argument on T that I found persuasive, I can obviously be convinced otherwise, but it seems like an uphill battle.

- My default is no judge kick/I will not do it, unless explicitly told to.

- Non-condo theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument not the team.

- Absolute defense, zero-risk, and presumption are most definitely a thing.

- AFF intrinsicness arguments on DAs have rarely made sense to me.

- Establish a metric for competition and have standards. I would like to see a counterplan that competes on the unique resolutional mechanism, rather than certainty and immediacy.

Things that will boost your speaks:

- Flow, i.e. correctly identifying dropped arguments, strategically going for dropped arguments, writing/typing when the other team is speaking, etc.

- Debating off paper and being less laptop dependent such as giving the final rebuttals with only paper.

- Having fun, debates are more fun when they are light hearted and you seem like you're enjoying it.

- Fewer off and a more cohesive strategy.

- Strategic and funny cross-exes. Most cross-exes are FYIs and reminders, don't do that.

- Down-time moving faster such as sending speeches out, starting cross-ex, etc. Asking for a marked doc when it was only two cards marked will annoy me and marked docs don't include cards not read. Just flow pls...

Miscellaneous things include:

- Keeping your camera on during online debates makes them more bearable.

- I will clear you twice and after that I will vote against you for clipping/stop flowing your speech, but for educational purposes I won't halt the debate.