Girl just debate lol

I am currently in my second year of debating with Manhattan Highschool. I have no particular stance on Aff, just know your case well. I have no preference on Neg strategies that will turn the ballot. However, personally, I like on-case arguments, and DA's. If you run a K or a CP, you should be able to explain it well, in lay terms, the same for T. For both teams, respond to ALL arguments. Take full advantage of your rebuttals, I will always advocate for the team with the most persuasive rebuttal. I want to see you selling your arguements.

Kennedy Crabtree

3rd year at MHS

feel free to contact if you have any questions about my paradigm or the round's results at kennedypcrabtree@gmail.com

I am a firm believer in the stock issues!!!

Topicality: I am willing to listen to any topicality argument.

Disadvantages: I like to hear disadvantages and think this is something that should used considering every plan should have advantages.

Counterplans: Counterplans should have almost, if not the same level of thought as an affirmative plan and I don't want to hear, "that's not my burden to prove." If you are running a plan regardless of your side you should still be able to answer questions regarding funds, actors, and such.

Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks but I am not very well versed in them.

Date/recency arguments: I will listen to date arguments but if nothing has changed since that card's date then why would I change my vote for a newer card saying the same thing?

Speed/Terms: You can talk fast but you need to be clear. For terms, I understand most debate terminology but if there are things like acronyms or project names then explain that in your speech for me and for your opponents.

Impacts: I want to hear an impact calculation from each side but if your major impact doesn't happen until 7568456 links then think about how relevant it is .

Framing(args on how the judge should be evaluating impacts) and framework(args on how the judge should evaluate the purpose and and structure of debate itself) : These are two different things and I think they are both important.

Overall: I am willing to listen to any argument but make sure it is thought out, have fun with debate, and be a good person. Do not call people out for things they can not change in round and just don't be rude.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

I am a second-year policy debater who is generally fine with any strategy, though I am particularly fond of theory arguments, topicality, and kritiks. Concerning in-round interactions and mannerisms, I view clash as a vital, perhaps even central, component of debate and enjoy observing the use of analytics, cross-application, and so on, as I appreciate most a debater who clearly displays a concrete understanding of what they are arguing for, being able to skillfully articulate elaboration and explanation independent of evidence.

I believe that debate should be taken seriously but it should also be a fun activity where people can express themselves. Any hateful comments or disrespect towards the other team or even judges won't be tolerated. Yes I'm still in high school and I've been debating for two years now

So yeah time for debate things: I love counterplans so please run them, they're awesome. No Kritiks. Please don't run them, I don't like them. Flow flow flow! It's so important! I don't like sprinting but speak at a pace that you can get your speech done.

Overall please don't stress about debating/speaking in general. Like I said I believe it should be serious but also fun.

Do not spread, ever, I despise that

I enjoy "fun" arguments

I will not read your files, I will only listen to your speeches and cross ex.

Don't drop args and if you argue T keep it under 2 minutes in any speech. 

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

Senior at Shawnee Heights, advanced debater

Have fun, speak loud and clearly, and don't be nervous!

Convince me why you should win, don't just spew off cards and expect a win. I want to know that you know what you're talking about and arguing for or against.

Good luck!