Last changed on
Thu June 20, 2024 at 3:03 PM PDT
about me:
hi, i'm ethan (any pronouns), a junior parli debater with mvla. i've had 16 different partners so you might've seen me on the circuit with: yuika sun, caleb lin, sandy xu, preston bhat, caroline martin, catherine wong, sophia zhang, keira chatwin, abhinav kasturi, taylor luna, nevin pai, calista woo, grace chang, sumanth mahaligam, sally tei, and abby zhou. my views on debate have been shaped by each of those partners who come from all kinds of debate backgrounds. all of that just means i'm down for whatever type of debate you wanna do.
tl;dr:
tech > truth. this is your debate, run whatever you want. signpost, extend your arguments, and do good weighing. don't worry about me rejecting any arguments. as long as you're warranting and implicating your arguments i can evaluate anything. i don't intervene (except maybe on accident oops). if i think an argument is problematic, i'll vote on the flow but report you to tab + your coach.
general:
- all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication
- nothing is sticky and shadow extensions make me sad
- extend terminal defense/resolve offense if you're trying to kick out of something
- collapse
- weigh
- comfortable with ~300wpm w/o docs. dont spread out your opponents
- tag teaming is fine (but i only flow speaker unless given reasons otherwise)
- grace time is fake i stop flowing after time.
policy debates:
- trichot is fake. debate the topic however u want, just be ready to win the fw/theory debate
- i tend to look at uq frames the link a lot. think carefully about your uniqueness
- terminalize your impacts pls! just saying "econ goes down" is not enough
- spec-affs and cps are cool if done strategically
- fine with condo but also receptive to condo bad
- fine with pics but also receptive to pics bad
- biased against cheaty cps (e.g. consult) but will vote on them
- perm is not an advocacy, it's a test of competition
- default to no judge kick, but can if told to
- give me texts & read solvency
lay vs. tech
this is just a rant, skip it if you want. there is no real delineation between "lay" and "tech." everything in debate is just an argument. i don't see why debating solely the topic and solely in a "lay" way is uniquely educational, especially when all the evidence in parli is garbage and the topics are recycled from tournament to tournament. so i (as a debater not a judge) don't really like trad rounds. if parli was a space solely for learning about current events and policymaking, i would hate this space since it spreads misinformation more than anything else. i think parli should be a space to learn how to think critically and construct arguments critically. i like friv theory because it's fun to run and gets people thinking critically. i like ks for the same reason. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. that also means debaters should be accessible with their language and POIs.
theory:
- i went for theory a lot. i can hang. just be accessible
- default to competing interps
- no default for drop the arg vs. debater. without an implication i can't eval the shell
- reasonability is tough to win without a brightline
- unpopular opinion: the rvi is underrated. just make it better than timeskew
kritiks:
- don't make the k inaccessible
- familiar with queer theory, basic cap, and a smidge of lacan
- know some pomo (mostly baudy and a little dng)
- do layering work. "prefiat > postfiat" isn't enough
- disclose non t k-affs (in parli, rotb + alt is nice)
- willing to vote on disclosure
- tfw is strong, just be able to answer the prep-outs
- extinction outweighs is strong, just win fw
funky tech:
- explain the implications to phil if you're reading it
- down for tricks, just read warrants
- down to hear judge performance but tell me how to eval it
- willing to vote on presumption triggers if warranted. don't create contradictions
- my fav fruits are peaches
misc:
- i flow poi answers and these are binding
- call the poo. incorrect poo articulations will not be punished
- 2ar and 2nr get new weighing but earlier weighing beats it
- 2ar gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
- i check back against golden turns by ensuring sufficient warranting
- imo the 2ar is broken if you can weigh. i'd suggest flipping aff in front of me
- i give speaks based on strategy. i might buy 30 speaks theory
everything in this paradigm is a soft default and can be changed if the right arguments are made in round.
final note:
this paradigm is long. i know. i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate 'novices'. if you don't understand half the stuff in this paradigm, that's fine! ask questions if you have them or just try your best to enjoy the debate and make the debate enjoyable for your opponents. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!