DEBATE!!!!

**Updates, I love COLA’s unconditionally, dont run it bad though.

Hi! Nice to meet you. I’m Jaxon, and I’ve done debate ever since sophomore year. I also do Domestic Extemp, have done Info, will do congress, and various other forensics events. If you have any questions please ask me before round. I will always prefer a speech drop or email chain, but it depends on the day. The most important thing to remember about this paradigm is that you should run what you want to run and what you are most comfortable with. Judge adaptation is a headache, so just do what you do best. However, if you want to pander, I do have some tips for you. I’ll flow, I’ll follow, make sure to share evidence and tell me how many pieces of flow I am going to need. Be kind, be a good person, and have fun :)

For the affirmative, K aff’s tend to be more abusive for me, so be prepared to defend that. Fiat is yours, but don’t extend it so much to where it’s unfair. You have to win on case, but that doesn’t mean that wins you the round. Don’t lose off case please.

For the neg, topicality is a good game to play, but don’t play it incorrectly. If you run an abusive high speed topicality block, that weighs less on my mind. Don’t be abusive with perms, you can run one or two or three, but dont run a tsunami and then complain if the other team doesn’t respond to one.

Specific args

DA’s and CP’s are classics, go for them. They win neg rounds. Don’t just go for on case as a neg team, since it kinda just comes across as you complaining with no other solution. Remember Hamilton cabinet battle #1.

K’s are awesome. Please go for them. They’re so fun to watch and the most educational thing that happens in the debate space. A couple things though, you have to prove why you win the role of the ballot. You also need to prove your idea of what debate should be is more influential than the affirmatives team. Another thing you need to prove is your alt. If I can tell you dont understand your lit base or your alt, then its a huge frown from me. Bleh. Don’t be a bad K debater.

I love topicality and theory. I will most likely vote on Topicality or Theory before anything else. Just dont be abusive with it. IF you read a ton of high tech language that your opponents dont understand, thats not debate thats just unfair. Make sure to explain in your speech or adequately answer during cross ex. Also having impacts and being able to push voters is essential.

Framing and framework win rounds. That’s all I have to say. Don’t drop it please.

Wacky arguments are also good. I will go so far tech over truth you could run anything. Just don’t be problematic or blatantly wrong. IF you want to run that we all live in a simulation, I’ll vote on it. IF you run that climate change isn’t real or that Puerto Rico isn’t a part of the United States, then I won’t vote on it. The affirmative or negative can ALWAYS and SHOULD respond with empirics prove, or something along those lines.

AND ABOVE ALL

Be a nice person :3 everyone learns the most when you enjoy the activity. If you’re rude, a terrible person, or just generally problematic, I’ll talk to your coach. Please show courtesy to your opponents, show evidence, dont be trick debaters. Have fun!

My email: allie.cloyd.05@gmail.com

I will be flowing and expect you to respond to as many of the other teams arguments as you can.

It will irk me if you start making claims that the other team didn't respond to things that they did, that's just showing me that you didn't flow effectively.

Please try to run a cohesive negative strategy, if you have major contradictions and they are pointed out by the other team, it will count against you. I hate "Neg gets multiple worlds" theory.

DA/CPs:

I am a fan of DAs and CPs, as long as you can explain your link story and why your impacts are more important. I also expect you to be able to explain why your counterplan solves better or is more important.

Ks:

I'm much more a policymaker judge than a K judge, I will listen to your K but you're going to do quite a bit of analytical explanation to convince me that it will solve/get me to vote on it. I am also probably not familiar with your lit base.

I'm unfamiliar with the topic this year. But I know debate. 

Have fun. Be nice to each other.

2nd Year Debater 

No preferences on cases, I've ran any type of case and can understand them as long as you can convey it clearly. Tech over truth, having clear communication is major to me. 

i can flow

been competing at manhattan high school for 3 years, ive done novice, jv, dci, and open. run anything

judge appeal is lame

tech>truth

2r should tell me how to weigh the ballot with impact calc

dont steal prep, ill know

speechdrop > emailchain

be a good person - toxicity weighs on my ballot

email: debatemaster1984@gmail.com for any questions abt my ballot, or ask in person

i really couldn't care less abt emotional appeals, it may work on a lay judge but i just think theyre insufferable

any speed is fine but dont let it mess up your speech quality

case specifics:

t should be ran correctly or else i dont weigh it.

cp - ill usually be convinced by a perm unless the neg can clearly argue why they're mutually exclusive

k - i like running and seeing k's, but if you run it wrong ill know and itll be super embarrassing for you

theory - just convince me its a voting issue and ill weigh it on my ballot

Former MHS Debater

sydney.k.vahl@gmail.com

Add me to the speechdrop or email chain

My paradigm is mainly just me ranting about all the things that have annoyed me in debate, don't take it too seriously :) I update this after every tournament I've competed at/judged at

Don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be a jerk. Automatic loss if you are, don't care how good your argument is. I didn't know how important this was to me until I forfeited a round crying and the judge didn't do anything. If you make your opponents cry and are being consistently a mean and bad person there is no way you will get my vote. I will not hesitate to stop a round.

Not a fan of emotional appeals. I don't care that "all my friends and family are going to die" or "thinking about the children", just explain your cards and why your impact outweighs PLEASE!

I know the rules of debate, I will know when you misrepresent them. Lazy debaters run false arguments.

MAJOR NOTE: If I'm making a face at you it's probably because I don't like what you're saying, so don't keep saying it and move on. Novices this means you.

Flow: I will (most likely) be flowing the round. Don't send me a masterfile, I only want the cards you are reading in round. If I don't know what you read, I won't flow it and you will lose on the flow.

Paper debate: No.

Lying: STG, if you think you can go up in your 2AR and just lie through the entire thing you need to never debate again because you are the problem. I WILL NOT accept blatant lies. DO NOT LIE ON THE FLOW. DO NOT tell me card's weren't answered to when they obviously were. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of lies that I couldn't contest and I know what it feels like to lose to lies I couldn't contest, don't be that person. Lying on your arguments is an entirely different story though. If you can successfully gaslight the other team, good for your girlie pop. If they don't question it, that's on them. I however, will question it, so watch what you say. TD;DR don't lie on the flow, all other lying is ok unless you get called out or I ignore you <3

CX: I prefer closed cross examination, but its really up to you. That being said, if your partner does all the work it will affect my final ballot. Don't waste CX, use it to further your argument. Don't be rude or weirdly aggressive in CX, will not make me want to vote for you. DON'T WASTE CX!!!

Speed: Being a fast talker myself, I know how difficult speed regulation can be. If you let me know beforehand and give me a signal to slow you down there should be no problems with your speed.

Spreading: I think speed and spreading are different things. If you speak faster but I can still hear actual words coming out of your mouth you're all good. Spreading so fast that your words are unintelligible is not acceptable. If I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth then I'm not flowing it. I can only write/type so fast, if I miss something I'm not going back to fix it later.

On-Case: Best thing a neg team can do is win on-case. I don't care how good or bad your off-case is as long as you really crush the aff's on-case.

Off-Case: Tell me why I should prefer your impacts. You should be able to defend your case while combating the opposing side.

K: I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain them well and specify your link. Love a good k every now and then.

DA: Great tool to use if you can clarify and justify their importance.

T: I'm a reformed T hater. While I don't like T being used as a time suck or being used against obviously topical cases, I LOVE LOVE LOVE a T double bind (T Subs & IRS Trade-Off DA<333). Not a fan of T with novice caselist. You have a packet with every possible adv and argument, there are no voters. Voters are the biggest thing for me on t. Even if you can prove a violation, if you have no voters then it doesn't matter to me. AKA losing voters = losing the arg

CP: Not the biggest fan of counterplans, but I will consider them. Please make sure to tell me why your plan solves more/better than the AFF. Generally I think CPs are lazy ways to get out of interacting case, if you go with a CP I still want to see flow on case. I hate seeing more than one CP, no multiple worlds nonsense. If you're still holding onto both of them by rebuttals and don't tell me which you're kicking then I will choose what to kick and I guarantee you won't be happy with my choice.

Rebuttals: The most important part of the round to me. Give me a well organized and efficient rebuttal. This is your time you really hammer in the central messages and ideas of your case, don't waste it.

Analytics: Don't tell me a team didn't properly respond to your arguments when they read analytics. You're not going to have a card for everything and that's ok, sometimes you only need a quick analytic (but not all the time, use cards when you can <3).

Condo: BAD! If you've got like 3 off 2 DA and T and drop T by the 2NR then that's fine but I will not sit through more than that. 4+ off only shows that you came in ill prepared to actually debate the resolution. I want quality over quantity.

Things I hate:

• Extinction good
• Bootlickers and butt-kissers
• Name calling/accusations. DO NOT resort to calling your opponents names. Calling someone racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist etc. is serious and not just something to win you the debate round.
• Assuming facts about a person and forming arguments about them in round. It is so funny for me as a white-passing-Asian getting "called out" for running Asian related arguments.
• T args without proper voters. IDC if theres a violation if the other team can prove that there are no harms
• Schools that are not small running small schools. Girliepop be so for real
• Running T as a noble argument. The effects of topicality only matter to me in round
• K Affs (hate hate hate hate hate hate)
• "This is my CX" This is so unnecessary just move on , you don't have to engage. I HATE this
• Calling for abuse when there so clearly wasn't. Responding to the arguments that YOU brought up is not abusive lol
• Not a politics DA person. I've run and cut enough of them to know how bad the uniqueness arguments can be. If you lose uniqueness then you lose the DA. Unless you can cut a politics DA right before or the day of probably avoid these with me. I love the idea of them but it just end up being a recency debate and I hate that with a passion
• Yes or no questions in cx. If you asked someone a question let them answer it how they want to answer it, don't put words in their mouth. If you do this nonsense (not the word I want to use) I will feel more sympathetic to the team being CXed. Yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no does nothing for anyone

Things I love

• More tangible real-world impacts. Structural violence>>>nuke war
• A good trade-off DA
• DOUBLE BINDS <333
• IMPACT CALC
• Framing and framework. ESPECIALLY uncontested framing and framework

Don't waste speech time, I hate when you waste speech time. Don't waste speech time. Stretch out your speeches if needed. More than 30 second speeches, please I'm begging you. DON'T. WASTE. SPEECH. TIME.

If you're looking for my political affiliation, just don't run hard right arguments. I tend to vote on more left leaning args.

Feel free to reach out afterwards to ask me about my ballot or if you need further clarification.

add me to the email chain, please! (or speechdrop too :))

salinawangdebate@gmail.com

current policy debater at Manhattan High School!

don't let anything in my paradigm discourage you from running something.

top level-just some notes (policy)

-tech>truth judge but will use truth when needed. i usually use my flow to decide my ballot.

- judge adaption is stupid, I'll try to adjust to anything you run!

-i will vote on anything if you can argue it well (flow!)

-i'm pretty chill with speed. i can flow decently well, but please remember i am just human, and i probably can't flow 500 mph--i go by the statement that "if i don't flow it, it wasn't argued".

-frame the ballot for me! tell me why i should vote for you. i am always looking for an easy way out.

-i have experience in all types of args, even kritiks and k-affs, so you're free to run one in front of me! but not sure if i can provide the best feedback, since i'm not a k-debater unfortunately- but i don't care if you run them- just always assume i'm unfamiliar with the lit. explain it!

-also, don't be a bad person. if you're in any way making phobic comments, i'll vote you down immediately.

-lastly, have fun! i want this to be enjoyable for you and i'll try my best to not hinder that experience. we're all tired, so let's debate and get done! :)

specific argument notes (policy)

-topicality

default in competing interpretations, really depends on flow for this arg. i've definitely done my fair share of 5 minute t 2nrs.

-counterplan

i might love or hate the counterplan, but it all depends on the flow if i vote for it or not. i love a good cp+da combo.

-disadvantages

i love disads, hate it when people run 6 generic da's just to drop them- personally, i believe that's kinda abusive. so i will vote on condo unless neg gives reason not to.

-k's/k'affs

okay, decently experienced with this. explain lit and we'll be fine. not the best person to run it in front of--but ill still hear it out. frame the round and give me a reason to vote for k/k-aff. always assume i'm unfamiliar with the lit. this is where i go truth in the round- however i'll still flow.

-case

i always like case. so if you're running that, yay. if not, it's chill. do whatever you want here. (unless you're disguising a da as on-case, that's just kinda mean and i'll be inclined to listen to theory about it)

what about other debate events?

uhm kinda awkward, but i'm not that experienced with the other debate events except for public forum.

public forum

i nat qualled (nsda) in pf x2. my top-level notes apply to that debate format as well. i'll adapt to anything you run, though i do think pf is a more lay-man style like debate, but i'll still hear you out. speed is fine, existential impacts are fine, theory is fine. your win will probably be because of flow (but i do understand pf has short speech times, so general contentions and main ideas as AT's are fine). logic can replace evidence.

congress

it's congress. have fun with your speeches, speak nicely, have good ev, and be (somewhat) knowledgeable about your case.

literally any other debate event

i have tried out all the debate events except for world schools, but that doesn't mean i'm experienced. consider me a lay judge. my top level notes still apply, i will try to adapt to anything you run, and i'll flow your speeches. but i'm not going to understand too much, so please explain your arguments (do you need ev? idk) sorry! again just pretend im a lay judge!

if you have any questions about my paradigm, let me know pre-hand! also, totes cool if you want to email me with questions about your round.

please add me to the email chain: xkatewardx@gmail.com

***i have difficulty with auditory processing, so while i can follow a fast pace, spreading will likely lose me and you the round. if you have any questions/concerns about this, feel free to ask me. i will clear you, but only if you ask me to.***

i'm a fourth year debater at manhattan high school (Kansas), competing in dci/varsity policy debate. feel free to ask questions after round or email me.

novices—don't worry about a lot of what's in this paradigm, most of it isn't relevant to novice debate. regardless of what you run, you do your best and i'll do my best to give you helpful feedback. if you're confused about something or get overwhelmed, please talk to me and we'll figure it out. your learning and well-being will always override competition. also please ask me questions after round! i'm always down to answer debate questions.

top level:

i'm a policymaker at heart, but i've dabbled in kritikal debate, so feel free to run anything in front of me as long as you can run it well. judge adaptation is stupid. tech over truth—unless the round requires an evaluation on truth or you ask me to vote on absurd/abusive/unrealistic arguments you have simply out-teched your opponent with (pls call this out more y'all). i love and greatly appreciate a quality, well-researched strat, and die a little every time i see otherwise. judge instruction! tell me why and how i should vote in the rebuttals! if unanswered (or not answered well), i will likely do exactly what was asked.

hurtful language and/or racist/sexist/homophobic remarks are an auto loss. all requested accommodations should be made without issue. rudeness will hurt your speaks and my willingness to vote for you. please just be nice and considerate.

topicality

i default to competing interpretations. T for the sake of timesuck or forcing a link is fine. if you're actually going in on T, there needs to be significant debate about harms/benefits of the two models of debate, and what i should ultimately prefer.

counterplans

general—i run counterplans. specifically, i run (and love) unique/custom counterplans that are both textually and functionally competitive (different actor, and at least meaningfully different action). that being said, i think a lot of counterplans can be really abusive, so i'm a little predisposed to theory on anything that fails to present a truly competitive alternative (delay, pics, consult, etc). i think future or conditional fiat is probably abusive. net benefits need to be well articulated (especially internal net benefits), and the negative needs to explain why a perm severs, not just say that it does. that being said, i'll vote on a counterplan based on how it goes on the flow. major props though to teams running genuinely good advocacies as counterplans, even more so if you kick it in the end.

counterplan theory—intrinsic perms are a no (adds an element previously not present to the plantext; time aka a delay, this-then-that, etc). honestly, the only truly valid CP perms are perm-do-both (they can coexist), perm-do-the-CP (the CP is topical and basically the aff), and even then i'd say PDCP is often severance. "PDB shields the link" needs to be explained, and an explanation of what the PDB would look like is necessary if you want to vote on it. pointing out that no explanation has been given scores the neg team points. a good answer to a perm is simply an explanation of the textual and functional competition of your counterplan, it should almost never require evidence. do not run illegal perms and then expect me to vote on them if they neg doesn't specifically respond to all 7 of them. condo is probably good, but i will lean aff if you are going +4 off.

disads

i really respect a well run disad. uniqueness should be up to date or at least you need to be able to analytically convince me everything is still practically unique. specific links can go a long way, but again, a good contextualization of a generic link through analytics can also work. impact calc shouldn't just be buzz words, but explained in the specific context of the impact scenarios at play. turns case/impact turns need to be well explained and preferably carded—well-articulated turns will really help you out on the rest of the flow.

kritiks

general—i have experience with these lit bases: security, techno-orientalism (i love poststructuralist kritiks), abolition, and racial cap, but i can probably judge most things as long as it's explained well. links need to be more than omission and more than just the topic broadly (or at least contextualized more specifically). if it's not your story don't tell it, and please don't use your experiences as leverage over other teams. we're here to learn, and shutting people out ruins that.

specifics—i think that link work is just as important as explaining/defending the alt, but a lot of teams focus so heavily on proving their links that they forget to develop their alt—the alt is your advocacy, so it needs to be fleshed out, even if unopposed in round. i will be extremely hesitant to vote on something i do not understand, because if i can't understand it, how am i supposed to know it solves? if the aff points that out in round, and the neg doesn't clarify, that's enough for me to prefer the aff. K's without alt's are just case turns, and if the link isn't specific, they're really not persuasive—please point this out aff teams. i think aff teams should probably be able to weigh the plan, unless you can convince me something outweighs that in terms of education and fairness (harmful rhetoric, etc).

kritik theory--condo in K rounds is the one of the only times i find it even remotely persuasive and that's for the simple fact that answering Ks takes serious time. And if the other team is running it purely as a timesuck, well that's not very fair or educational. there's a lot more perms available on K's, but please don't run +3 unexplained perms and expect them to win the round. neg teams, i think perm spec theory is a good reason for me to reject the argument. floating PIKs are usually pretty dirty (rarely actually solve for the plan), but if they're fairly obvious from the onset, i'll give you more leeway.

theory

theory exists to shutdown bad behavior, reinforce a positive debate culture, and prioritize education in a debate. i do not think it exists to overwhelm the other team or secure an easy win. i think fairness and education are voting issues (if the situation truly violates those concepts), and i'm down for more creative voters (inclusion, clash, real world, portable skills, iterative testing, etc)

y'all should be running more perf con (performative contradiction bad)/multiple worlds. nothing makes me more annoyed than obviously contradicting arguments, and i will jump at the opportunity to give you a win on education and fairness. if your CP would still trigger DA, then don't run them together (yes, even with an internal NB)—turning yourself is just bad debate.