Last changed on
Sat September 21, 2024 at 3:37 AM CDT
Put me on the chain if there is one --- ava.vonlintel@gmail.com
Ava Von Lintel! Junior at Washburn Rural High School. Debated NATO, fiscal redistribution and IP rights. Been a 2A for a while, but I am now a 2N. If you want more info, look at Tim Ellis' and/or Sean Duff's paradigm. They shaped how I view debate.
Most important thing for me is to be kind and warm. Debaters tend to be cold, and I don't want the novices I'm judging to form that habit. Show each other respect, help each other out, etc, etc.
I prefer clear debating over fast debating. Slow down on tags and authors, and make a pause between pages. Not only is that nice for me, it also shows that you have an understanding of flowing, which is greatly important.
I will be judging novices, and if you are one, it's a good idea to not read more than 3 off in front of me and not the longest version of your affirmative. That tells me you know how to spread, not that you know how to debate. I hate when novices read blocks that your coaches or older kids gave you that are obviously not specific to the debate, where I have to do the work to connect the dots. I think what makes a great debater is the one who takes work off of the judge. It's not that I'm not willing to do that work, but the best debaters will connect all the dots for me. Saying which argument your argument is answering is important, which means you need to clash.
Case---the link debate is always the most convincing and interesting to me. You could make an impact turn that you probably don't understand (since I'll be judging novices) and win because your opponents also don't understand it, but that's not fun for anyone. I like in-depth discussions of what the plan does and how it affects the world. I like analyzing sources and casting doubt on studies. And it's especially important for the negative to engage with the case. If you debate the case well, that wins you some brownie points.
Topicality---I think it's an important check on affirmatives and I generally like these discussions. I think a topicality argument goes better if the negative believes the affirmative is not topical. Don't just read topicality because you can. Read it because the aff is not topical.
Counterplans---I think it's an important out for the negative when they don't want to defend the status quo (though in most situations you probably can). It's important that the counterplan is competitive, meaning it is different from the affirmative and from the status quo. It needs to have a reason that the plan is bad, otherwise I will not vote on a counterplan.
Kritiks---often my least favorite arguments in debate. I don't see myself ever voting for a kritik, though I guess there's a first time for everything. I much prefer practical policy applications of a plan than the metaphorical, educational value of an affirmative. If you do want to win a kritik, have a good link and a reason that uniqueness doesn't matter.
Disadvantages---actually my favorite negative argument. Impact calc and the link debate are especially important to me in these debates. When the 2NR is one DA and case, with an in-depth discussion of how the DA affects the case and vice versa, I'm having the time of my life.