Last changed on
Mon January 24, 2022 at 2:56 PM CDT
Emory
1. Innovation is knocking and will be rewarded with favorable speaker points. Sure give me wipeout, Pess, Spark, Skep Psycho, etc. but make it spicy!
2. LDers stop asking for marked docs as if evidence comparison or carded warrants even cross your mind. Nothing is more annoying than sitting and waiting for a doc to be sent just for it to change absolutely nothing. Admit you can't flow and just take prep. On the flip side don't send 9 off docs and then proceed to skip every other card, know your limits... I promise you lose more ethos doing this.
3. Sure, include me on the chain. Npiredebate@gmail.com
2020-2021
Facts about me that you can arbitrarily and subjectively use to pass judgments about me:
Did policy and LD in HS and college. I read existentialism and postmodern philosophy for pleasure. I have an interesting affinity for reading and researching things relating to Mao, Maoism, and weird contours of communist organizing despite being a rather open capitalist.
TLDR: Tech>Truth (default). Do what you want...no actually like read and do whatever you want/whatever you think is the most strategic. I judge the debate in front of me. Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading. Yes, T/fwk. By nature of the last 2 sentences, I judge a lot of clash debates and KvK debates.
The following three points are borrowed from J. Stidham's paradigm which I think captures some of my general beliefs:
"-No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I enjoy all aspects of the game. Debate should be fun and you should debate in a way that makes it valuable for you, not me. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Tech and truth both matter... I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. Impact framing/judge instruction will get you far. The predispositions I have listed below are the general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.
-Don't base your strategy off of your (probably incorrect) assumptions about my own debate career.
-For everyone: Stop being afraid of debate. Cowardice is annoying. Don't run away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. If you don't like defending arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the [Chess Club]."
Additional thoughts:
-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff? I ultimately think the aff has to...well do something regardless of what style of argumentation.
-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.
-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is bad at the end of the debate I will vote aff. Similarly, if the 2AC fails to extend/explain why they actually solve anything I will vote neg on presumption. I see this problem a lot in T debates and it just baffles me. Congrats you won that your aff is topical but not that it is good.
-CASE DEBATE its a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly will be rewarded heavily with speaks.
-If you expect a judge to stop the round after a debater reads a Shapiro or Patterson card...I'm not the judge for you.
-I go into rounds as a blank slate, you should tell me how you want arguments treated/used("filter the debate through the permutation, etc.) This makes framing HUGE!
-Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means a claim, warrant, and implication.
All the COOL kids give args their own section so they're below if you care.
Ks
From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.
I do enjoy postmodernism for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature as well as ID pol will be deeper than other works.
Top-level stuff
1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.
2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.
My major qualm with K debates as of late mainly centers around the link debate.
1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.
2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".
DA
Not much needed to be said here. Have good internal link analysis. You don't need to be an aspiring poly sci major, just be knowledgeable about what you're reading. Econ, Biz Con and of course Heg are among my favorite here.
CP
- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.
- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.
- Solvency comparison is rather important.
T/general theory
I don't have any major predispositions here. Just tell me how to weigh and layer please.
T-USFG/FWK
I'm pretty even on this honestly. If you're actually reading this section, I would encourage you to read all of it and not cherry-pick sentences to make sweeping judgments.
I think debate is a game cause it is. This does not mean it can't have spill out or have important meanings for certain groups but at the end of the day, it's a competitive game that both sides want to win.
-Did I read an aff without a plan my entire junior and senior year and most of college? Yes
-Do I think T-USFG/Fwk is a true arg in the sense that it's probably unfair given certain models of debate? Yes
-Does what I ran or think is true play into my decision? Nope. As I said above tech>truth just because something is true doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.
For aff teams, you should answer T the way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 1ar that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.
You should probs have a counter interp or model of debate.