Last changed on
Thu February 9, 2023 at 6:39 AM MST
IDAHO/TRAD/NSDA PARADIGM
Hey y'all! I'm Taylor (she/her/hers). I'm currently a junior at BSU. I was an LD debater but I usually competed on the national circuit towards the end of my HS career so I'm suuuper progressive- if you debate progressively WELL in front of me you're in a good place. I also did Congress for 2 years, I'm state champion in that, and I've been to NSDA nationals 3 times.
SEND ME THE SPEECH DOC taylorjepson@u.boisestate.edu
If you do not send me the speech doc, I'll flow what I hear but I guarantee I'm going to miss quite a bit and that's on you.
I expect respect for everybody. Debate is a game but it's also a real place and what you say and do has real impacts, so be kind, respect pronouns, don't be sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. or I will drop you and then report you both to your coach and tabs :)
I generally disclose and prefer to give verbal feedback so unless the tournament has a specific policy against it that's what I'm going to do.
Also if you have any questions pre/post round feel free to reach out.
GENERAL STUFF
LD Paradigm
That being said! Things I like:
- Progressive arguments! K's, plans, disads, counterplans, T, theory, etc. If you don't know what those things are, don't worry about it :)
- Being polite
- Clearly explaining v/c and IMPACTS- I will vote on impacts far more readily than framing alone, but if your impacts are dependent on framing you definitely need to be extending and explaining that throughout the round.
I will NOT penalize you for kicking out of arguments IF it's done correctly (that means you have to answer offense on it first!)
Things I don't like:
- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it. It's rude, so just be nice.
- Philosophy cases: if you spend more than 2 minutes of your constructive reading framing, a) I probably won't understand it, and b) I'm going to get bored and might zone out a bit.
- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls
Congress Paradigm
- USE. EVIDENCE. You CANNOT just go up and spout claims for 3 minutes with no cards and expect me to believe you. PROVE what you're saying.
- Show me that you're involved in the chamber by speaking on every bill and asking good questions as often as you can! I also like to see that you understand parli procedure. I know it and will step in if I need to but I'd like you to run the chamber yourselves.
- I go by Nationals standards so don't try to mess with anybody by trying to enforce Idaho standards, your rank will drop so fast I swear your ears will pop. Same thing if you are POing and I see you trying to screw someone over- I was a Congress debater. I will know. Don't do it.
Policy Paradigm
Spreading is fine as long as everyone has the doc unless there's an accessibility issue, tag teaming is ok by me, and I want to see all the parts of your case clearly please! (ie. inherency, solvency, etc.)
Tbh I don't have hardly any experience with policy so minus the stuff about V/C I'm probably going to evaluate it like I would a progressive LD round. Ask me if you have questions.
PF Paradigm
Disclaimer- this is the only form of debate I am almost completely unfamiliar with, so it might be a bit of a learning curve for me.
That being said! Things I like:
- Being polite
- Clearly explaining IMPACTS and WARRANTING- if you don't tell my WHY x causes y, you're leaving me to decide whether or not that argument is true and you don't want to do that because it's unlikely I'll agree with you unless you've given me a concrete reason to. Also, I will have a very low threshold for arguments that your impacts won't actually happen from your opponents if they're not warranted.
- Unique, fun cases!
- Team players- you're a member of a team, so act like it. Both partners need to be active participants in the round. Tag teaming is fine by me.
Things I don't like:
- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it. It's rude, so just be nice. In PF, this also means letting your partner speak :) I've heard of some teams where one partner reads everything, does all of the rebuttals, and answers all of the questions. Don't do that, you will lose in front of me. If you want to debate solo, go do LD.
- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls
___________________
If you made it this far, congrats!
Things that will boost your speaks (applies to all forms of debate):
- Going for a K in LD (+.5 speaks bc doing progressive debate in Idaho is hard)
- Making me laugh while making a good point (+.3 speaks, the best speeches are the entertaining ones!)
- In-person tournaments: bring me food, an energy drink, or hot chocolate :) (+.3 speaks for helping me stay awake)
CIRCUT PARADIGM
Hey y'all! I'm Taylor (she/her/hers), I'm a Junior at Boise State rn. I was an LD'er but I started on the Idaho circuit doing Congress for a couple of years and only have one year of experience competing on the national circuit. I did a lot of K's, LARP, pretty standard stuff for the most part, you can check last year's wiki if you want more detailed info.
SEND ME THE SPEECH DOC taylorjepson@u.boisestate.edu
If you do not send me the speech doc, I'll flow what I hear but I guarantee I'm going to miss quite a bit and that's on you.
Also please don't send me cards in the body of an email, it's really annoying and hard to read.
I expect respect for everybody. Debate is a game but it's also a real place and what you say and do has real impacts, so be kind, respect pronouns, don't be sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. or I will drop you, give you 0 speaks, and then report you both to your coach and tabs :) I am going to be VERY strict about this y'all- I literally quit competing February of my senior year because I was sick of people being awful. Be a good human.
Also if you have any questions pre/post round feel free to reach out.
LD
A lot of this is copied from my former coach, the wonderful Nethmin Liyanage :) but my stuff is slightly different so even if you know her style it's still worth a read preround
Prefs Cheat Sheet
1 – Good/inventive Ks, performance, standard policy stuff (I appreciate cool new disads and fun advantage CPs). I'm a really good person to run K's in front of (I did a lot of these as a debater, specifically reps k's, fem killjoy and sick womxn theory, stuff like that). Just don't be abusive with it, I'm not going to hack for you so run and argue it well if this is your plan.
2 – Generic k's (cap, security, etc.), generic policy cases, good trad debate (traditional format but does line-by-line, is not violent, engages in actual clash/argumentation). Like I said, I was on the Idaho circuit for a long time so trad is what I'm most used to. If in doubt, I'm honestly not a terrible judge for this so feel comfortable going for it
3 – Theory (that's not frivolous) is around here in terms of whether or not you want me as a judge. I am far more receptive to “condo bad” against 3+ conditional CPs than I am to 4 theory shells against a whole res aff just because you felt like ROBspec was what we needed to experience at that moment in time. I'm a much better judge for you if you read good theory and theory isn't your primary strat.
4 – Theory/procedurals (if your only strat is theory), Phil is also around here IF you're willing to explain/warrant args and not assume that I know Every Single Thing you're saying, otherwise I'm a 5. I don't have a lot of experience with phil and if you choose to read these in front of me keep in mind that if you spend more than 2 minutes of your constructive reading framing, a) I probably won't understand it, and b) I'm going to get bored and might zone out a bit.
5 - Tricks. This is both because I'm the least experienced in this style of debate and because I enjoy it the least.
General thoughts
I will give +0.2 speaker points if you add a significant portion of your analytics to the speech doc and organize them such that they are easy to follow. I think this makes debate more accessible, and also just makes everyone more happy during online debate. On a related note, if someone asks for analytics and you say something rude or condescending along the lines of “it’s your job to flow,” your speaks just dropped by 0.3.
Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. If your opponent concedes something, that means you get access to uncontested warrants/I consider those warrants to be true. It does not mean I will vote on an argument with no warranting. It also does not mean your extension can be sans-warrants.
I believe in disclosure :)
I value technical debate. However, I also think that truth matters. I do not default to dropping a team that reads untrue arguments (either for strategic value or out of lack of knowledge), however, I am receptive to this being argued as a “reject the team” issue by the opponent. Use your judgment on this – a novice with a bad politics disad is probably not the same level of egregious as someone who read 8 untrue disads because disproving an untrue DA takes longer than reading one.
Similarly, I think that independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they sequence before everything else. This isn’t to say I won’t listen to args about reps or other independent voters. I made these args. Reps matter and I value these debates. I also value warrants, sequencing, and ballot analysis in these debates. Independent voters are arguments and they need a claim, warrant, and impact, along with a justification for how they sequence (just like any other argument). Calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.
Please clearly link V/C or ROB/ROJ to your impacts. If you win framing but can't prove that you win the impacts under that framing, you're not in a good place. That being said, if you have explained to me why an argument/ind voter comes before framing, I will weigh that before V/C and impacts.
Relatedly: sequencing saves ballots!! Tell me which layer comes first and why. I will buy things like “case comes first because it has a value criterion and those are good for debate” as long as you warrant your argument. Just tell me why your offense comes first, give me a warrant, and tell me why your offense sequences before that of your opponent. If not … it’s up to me and that’s not good for you.
Framing is important. If your opponent concedes your ROB but reads theory, use the ROB to exclude their offense. Don’t concede framing.
Finally, as someone who didn't have access to massive team block files or ten coaches, I am very sympathetic to small school and independent debaters. I will not reward you for just reading a massive team block in your rebuttals. I want actual debate, not just regurgitation of what your coach wrote for you.
Things I don't like (IMPORTANT):
- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it multiple times. I'm not kidding and will not tolerate it. It's rude and it's demeaning, so just be nice.
- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls