Hawk Talker Invitational
2022 — Olathe, KS/US
Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.
I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).
Tech/Truth, Ev Quality
For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.
K
I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.
CPs
Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.
DAs
DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.
Condo
I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.
T
Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.
Theory (General)
In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.
CX
I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.
Speed
I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).
Hello! My name is Aarushi Pore (she/her) I am a current 4-year debater at Olathe North High School who currently debates Open/KDC, but I have experience debating in all divisions.
Add me to the email chain if you are making one!! ♥︎
You will automatically lose the round in my eyes and get reported to your coaches if you make any personal attacks toward your opponents. PLEASE remember to be kind and respectful to EVERYONE in the room, be confident in your arguments, and have fun!! ˙ᵕ˙
Argumentation:Don't run an argument just to run an argument - I have experience in running all kinds of arguments from DAs to Ks, so if you run something, I will probably understand it, but please have knowledge about what you are talking about! Trust me, it is very obvious and not pretty when teams do not know about the arguments they are running. I am not going to vote for you just because you ran a top-level argument like a K - you need to do the proper analysis for it. Analysis is very important to me in the round - explain the arguments you are introducing so that I know you are aware of what you are talking about and not just reading off of a computer screen. At the end of the day, I will vote for any argument as long as you explained the importance of how it functions in the round properly.
Clash:I absolutely LOVE clash in a debate round! Run those on-case arguments, pick through their evidence with analytics, run an argument that directly takes down their argument! ADDRESS YOUR OPPONENTS' ARGUMENTS AND ANSWER THEM! Clash is what makes a debate round fun!!
Speed:I am ok with faster speed as long as you are clear on taglines! However, if you are unclear - please slow down! And I will let you know if I cannot understand you.
Debate is a high school activity, so please don't take it so seriously and be kind - being rude gets you literally nowhere. You all are young adults, so I expect you to show maturity and professionalism in your rounds. Thanks and good luck! You got this! ◝(ᵔᵕᵔ)◜
Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE
239 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.
Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.
Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.