Advancement of debate

logical progression of ideas

supporting argument with sources

interaction with and connected to other chamber members

proper decorum

proper use of parliamentary procedure

knowledge of laws, and governmental procedures

Email: Kole.ingram2004@gmail.com

plz email questions or hate, either way makes me feel special.

I currently do debate/speech at WKU (Western Kentucky) - specifically doing NFA-LD and policy. For speech mainly LP's.

In general:

As a general tldr I think that debates are best when people are reading what they want (as long as its an actual argument). I look for judge instruction to guide my vote and is important for any debater. I am primarily a basic policy debater, but am willing to flow anything, but non-stock K’s will probably need more explaining, especially since I am not super familiar with the lit on the high school topic(s). Also, I did not do debate in high school, so if there is terminology specific to the event, I will probably need you to explain it to understand how to flow the argument you're trying to make. I look at all the docs sent during my flow, but I am still tracking what you say. I also flow on paper, so I would like some pen time to ensure I get your arguments down; spreading is fine. Just make sure the tags are clear/slower. I care about the cards being read, and you should, too. If a card is blatantly poorly highlighted or is like one sentence with no warrants to the claim it's making, I don't want to vote on that card, so make the argument that the card is bad. I also love seeing people rehighlight people's bad evidence so even more reason to actually care about the cards being read.

CPs:

They’re great, love a good counter plan debate. Theory and perms need to be explained. I need to know how a perm functions when it's read and how it shields the net benefit. For theory, I will flow it but need actual reasons for how to evaluate from each side. If you are planning on collapsing on theory arguments please explain the clashing interps in the round, why I prefer yours, and make sure to impact out these scenarios. I need to know what effect it has on the debate space to vote on it.

K:

Focus on explaining the links to the aff and making sure they are flushed out. Again, I will vote on non-stock Ks if explained well, but don’t assume I’m familiar with the works or links already, as I am probably not. Perms, just like CP's, need explanations on how the perm actually functions and why it solves the alt or similarly why the alt has to be on its own.

DAs:

Make sure to extend the impacts of your disads you read. I think impact comparisons is a major point of winning debates when going for disad.

FW:

Explain the need for the debate that you are advocating for, and why it is preferable for debate. Like anything else judge instruction on how to weigh arguments under your FW goes a long way on my ballot.

T:

It's cool. I recommend if your collapsing on it (this applies to K and FW prob as well) don't spread through a million analytics especially if they're not in the doc. I am going to try to keep up if you do, but if its not clear I might end up missing something.

RVI's and IVI's (Theory in general):

I do not really get or like these in the context of a totally random pivot to offensive theory in like the second to last or last speech. I have read IVIs that are just kind of FW violations, which are fine. I will still flow, and if explained well with not enough response will vote on, but I need an actual argument/impact as to why I need to evaluate theory differently. For theory, admittedly, my threshold to drop the debater is relatively high so either the theory goes dropped or just definitively outclassing on the argument. Obviously, theory is needed and if legitimate I don't mind voting on it, but bad theory that is there just to be there to mess up opponent isn't something I like voting on so just make the effort to put some defense/CI on the theory.

(Def not in order of args I like if your wondering its: DA, Case, CP, gap, T, K, Theory/FW)

PF stuff:

Defense is slippery. Extend your arguments.

Non-decision-altering brownie points will be awarded to you for following things (just things I've seen in rounds for someone that doesn't do PF that I prefer):

1) Actually doing a doc for ev instead of just sending it on request. I don't really get not just sending out the cards you're going to read if you think your ev is good enough but may just be me.

2) Using Word instead of Google Docs. I think Docs just causes more headaches than necessary no Verbatim usage, potential for mid-speech changes, and just generally looks worse (because of no Verbatim).

3) Not abusing cross. Follow-ups I think are generally fine but when we have not moved on to the other sides questioning after a minute of being stuck on one question we just need to move on. Even if the other team is just trying to dodge questioning just point it out then move on.