Payten LaPoint (she/her)

Maize High

please use an email chain! paytendb8@gmail.com

Me

This is my 3rd year of debate at maize high school and I am a 2n!

Overview

Tech>Truth

I will flow and a dropped argument is a true argument.

I'm down for any type of argument (obv nothing racist, sexist etc.)

Speed is good but I will clear you

My facial expressions will tell you ALOT

Topicality

I think topicality debates are good as long as you aren't just reading blocks. I default to competing interps and I love evidence comparison. YOU HAVE TO DO THIS TO WIN THE T FLOW.

Counterplans

I think counterplans are good. I will vote on a cheaty counterplan unless the aff tells me why it's bad. I also will judge kick if you tell me too!

I have a predisposition to condo good

If you drop the entirety aff solvency while going for the counterplan there's probably a higher chance i vote aff - you need to go to solvency flow and extend at least a couple solvency deficits. Or make the net ben debate very convincing.

solvency for the aff and for the cp is usually a yes or a no for me and I will vote aff if they have a very strong solvency deficit.

DAs

DAs I like them but my fav is the politics DA, I will default to newer uniqueness evidence. I think link debates are important. low risk of link or sus link = low chance of ballot. impact calc is also super important here. Evidence comparison is good.

Ks

I am familiar with all Ks however I enjoy the Cap k. I have ran the Cap k and Imperialism so take that as you will. I've had alot of experience with Ks so feel free to read whatever you want. YOU NEED TO HAVE A GOOD LINK PLS.

K Aff

I have alot of thoughts here but to keep it short. I am leaning to vote neg on FW especially if the Aff has nothing to do with the topic. Please do not just have a block battle I will be very mad and angry. :( However, feel free to read a K aff with me just know that you will need to explain to me why your model of debate is best.

Misc

Open cross is cool. However, DO NOT speak over your partner or I will lower your speaks.

Disclosure is good you should do it :)

I will allow the 1ar to slightly undercover neg block arguments. As long as I flow it the 2a can expand on that.

If you bring me a snack I will raise your speaks .3

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.

Put me on the email chain: dustinrimmey@gmail.com

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.