Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 5:16 AM EDT
Hello friends! I'm Kiran, I do policy debate at the University of Houston and help out Kinkaid in policy and PF when I can :)
Don't need to take prep for tech issues, sending cards, etc. but please don't end prep and keep talking to your partner about what you need to do in the speech.
Also, please be nice and a good human being during rounds (and outside of them!)
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: kiran.debate@gmail.com
General things:
Do whatever and do it well! I read ev during the round, but I'm not reading for meaning that isn't articulated in the speeches.
Fine with speed
Tech>truth, and use smart cross-applications to your benefit
More judge instruction and comparison = more likely wins
Idk what's happening, but recently, I've been judging so many debates where people are like "they have dropped everything, extend it across the flow," and there is just 0 argument attached. My threshold for extending arguments that are dropped or very lightly covered is pretty low, but you need to say something like "conceded x impact, that outweighs and turns the DA because..." so I have some judge instruction.
More specific thoughts:
CP/DA/Case Debate: Great, I love it!
-Prefer CPs that solve internal links, doesn't need a solvency advocate and rehighlightings of AFF ev are fantastic
-Internal link comparison>impact comparison
-There can be 0 risk of a DA
-NEG leaning on most CP theory
Topicality:
-Interps should be predictable, I default to competitng interps if ev is of equal quality
-I can be persuaded that lack of clarity in the most precise definitions is a reason to defer to reasonability.
-Most likely to vote for the team that does the best impact comparison-is limits explosion truly atrocious under a certain interp? Does topic innovation die under another one?
Policy v Ks:
-Prefer links specific to the AFF with good turns case explanations
-Don't love big overviews that try to filter the whole debate, but more and specific examples that illustrate your theory of power are much better
-Good for both education and fairness on framework, more likely to vote on the perm if you can clearly differentiate the AFF from the context of the link
K Affs v Framework:
-Pretty sure my record is 50/50 in these debates
-Good for both education than fairness, TVA and SSD helps a lot
-Framework should be combined with a presumption push, more likely to vote AFF the less your 2NR is contextualized to it
-Need to know what the AFF does before the 2AC
K v K:
-Almost never in these debates, not super familiar with the lit, if I am judging a debate where this is the strat-I need clear explanations and examples
Tricks:
-Idk why it's called tricks, this category means "desperate attempts to avoid actually debating" args to me
-Will vote on it if dropped, but threshold is so low for an answer.
-RVIs fall in this category
Speaks: I start at a 28.5, but if I’m judging at a local where everyone’s inflating speaks, I will absolutely do the same. Don’t ask me for a 30.
PF:
-I largely evaluate PF rounds the same as policy rounds
-Don't need big picture things, just explain why your thing outweighs the other team's
-Defense is not sticky, I have no idea what that even means
-I die a little every time a team paraphrases or spends 20 mins figuring out which cards to send after a speech, please do this before your speech
-Speeches are so so so short, you don't need to explain the entire story of your arg each time, just explain why it matters, what your opponents missed, and how I should evaluate it.
Feel free to send me questions, and have fun y'all! :)
