Email (For Email chains): natalieriggs05@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

Policy Debate
I am mostly going to be judging based on knowledge of your resolution, speaking skills, and ability to answer arguments. I have done both debate and forensics throughout High School.

Quinn Largent pronouns She/They

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 5/8/24)

LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below

Tech > Truth. unless told to evaluate arguments diffrently.

I'm comfortable in any type of debate. I adapt to you not the other way around. Email me if anything doesn't make sense in the paradigm I'm horrible at typing.

post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while I reserve the right to make one and I am glad to answer any questions you have.

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you. (this is one of the few things I can't be convinced of otherwise)

People who have influenced how I think about debate: Easton Logback, Kevin Krouse, Madison Troup, Aidan Foust.

I flow on paper

TLDR:

Do what you want

there are no rules of debate just guidelines break as many as you want just have reason and win the debate on why you should and I'll vote for it. everything is always up for debate. (do not do this just to overpower people you know you are better than speaks will be affected but won't change if u win or lose)

I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not so I will vote on out-of-round issues as long as there is proof because I can't vote on just he said she said scenario.

if someone I trust tells me you are an abuser or groomer etc bad thing. I will do everything in my power to vote you down. I do not care if you blow the opponent out of the water you are not winning. so if u are a POS strike me.

Specifics for adapting in the round:

----- Logistics/Presentation -----

extend your arguments this means you have a claim and warrant and what that means for the round

Call me whatever I don’t care.

Put me on the email chain or what ur using.

I will also auto-vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. I have a 1 strike policy if it's an honest mistake and the other team doesn't notice. but they can run theory at any mistake

Speaks

30 - literally perfect i have zero things I would change (I don't think I'll give these out like ever)

29.5+ - go win the tourney

29+ - go break

28.5 - average

below this is just below average for the tourney

yes speaks change depending on skill of tourney (the 30 doesnt) (send me song if i like song +0.1 if i dont like it wont change the speaks i also have to have never heard the song before)

If i can tell you who won ask me questions.

----- Plan AFFs -----

I have experience reading soft-left AFFs (native water rights on water), big stick AFFs (OCOs on NATO), and both (UBI on Fiscal redistribution)

just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.

I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues). There is zero risk of case, especially with how bad plan texts are getting.

JUST SAYING WORDS FROM THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A PLAN TEXT. ur plan text should tell me what the aff is and does. i wont auto vote for it but vaugness is a real argument. (this is amplified even harder after the fiscal topic because holy christ)

By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff. (The burden of explanation does not change no matter what happened in the round idc how little they have responded)

IP topic Spec:I think soft left AFFs are going to be really good on this topic because the I/L chain to extinction makes almost zero sense for me right now (maybe someone will disprove me at some point this year). but rn i dont know how a actually topical aff will access it.

----- K AFFs -----

have experience reading them (deluze queer aff on nato and set col/ablism on fiscal redistrubution).

K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw. Fairness is an IL. just yelling the round is unfair means nothing to me what does it being unfair mean does it means its harder for you to win if so tell me why. most convincing aff args on FW ---- Turning FW that uses the affs lit basis> Counter Interp > WM that uses the affs lit basis > WM that has an explanation on how you meet their interp > Turning FW that is just K affs are good > WM thats two words. > Dropping it.

how negs should go for FW: it should have impacts based on actions of the round exaberated by what the spefic sytle of the aff or lit basis of the aff does to debate or the round. Good TVA is sick. if identity related explain how being untopical affects that said identity. more spec FW is the more likley i might like voting on it.

ROB/ROJ: these are diffrent to me they arent the same(If the round makes them the same tho ill evaulate it as such) ROB means what my ballot should be doing when i vote. ROJ is how i weigh and view the round that is taking place

KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method.

explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.

----- T -----

EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY

I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently (T – Article V against most NATO AFFs). (T - Prexisting/T - Redistrubutiuon against all Fiscal redistrubution Affs)

You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep

case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way is always appresciated

i default to competing interps.

Affs extned your actual aff in the 2ar when awnsering T just wining your case is topical doesnt win you the round you still need to solve an impact. i will vote neg on presumption if the 2ar is just 5 minutes of you saying u are topical

Its your burden to prove that the aff is topical and a good idea just winning its topical doesnt mean you win the aff is a good idea.

----- CPs -----

(if sending counterplan docs dont title it CP please god i dont need that being saved in my computer)

Condo: ill vote if u win it. i went for it a lot senior year

Neg: have a net benefit.

ill be honest i ran a counterplan very few times and the times i went for it is even less. ill probably think about it very similary to a alt on a K because thats something im used to

Judge kick: TBH never done this in a round never ran against it and tbh I think its bad because it means I'm making a strategic decision for the negative for them. i mean if the neg tells me to judge kick ig I will unless the aff tells me not to for some reason.

IDK WHAT JUDGE KICK IS THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF CONDO MEANS LIKE THAT DOESNT HAVE A WARRANT HOW IS IT LOGICAL EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bads. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team

----- DAs -----

NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.

Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly link paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.

There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.

------ Ks -----

More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.

I am decently well versed in K literature. I have read biopower, capitalism, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, statecrafting, decolozation, Setller colonialism and queer theory. However, it seems that the way authors are read in debate varies from the source material, and from round-to-round, so explain your theory the way you want me to understand it in the context of the round.

Link: after doing K debate a while good K teams will devolp more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independt reject teams because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K

Impact: should be explained how it implicates the aff.

ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.

You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA

If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.

K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it. FW can be used to get links to the K

------ Hot Takes -----

i know have takes about debate and i want yall to have a vision in my mind and how i see debate.

--- Textual Comp is bad i think if it was the one standard is that we say Blank instead of Blank prolly kills debate if the word changes something about the function that makes more sense. functional competion is the better option ill vote on textual comp if won i just wont be happy about it

--- if u have a multi plan counter plan and u can kick certain parts of the counterplan that is not 1 condo that is how many diffrent combanations that you can make by kicking how many parts and not kicking some ETC.

--- how generic the 1nc doesnt matter to me as long as it gets explained in the block or CX.

LD paradigm

------ Trad LD -----

i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(

Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.

------ Prog LD -----

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks: its not fun to debate or judge but hey if u win u win ig.

PFD paradigm

Hi why am i here. this shouldnt be possible. look ive never watched a pfd round or judged one or debated in one if you have me as your judge im sorry. (if there is some norms i need to know about LMK)

Congress paradigm

I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it

how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i want put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.

Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)

IE paradigm

If I'm judging you in IE I'm sorry

------ Extemp -----

I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.

Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts

tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it

------ Prose/Poetry -----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again as a prewarning sorry.

This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.

use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool

------ DI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.

once again sorry.

characters should all be able to be seen apart.

check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.

have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece

------ HI-----

Once again sorry

Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3

i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it.

like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.

object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)

how understanding of your story is great still.

having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.

OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.

------ POI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.

3. a fluid story.

if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.

Object permance is great (check di for example)

TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.

------ INFO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.

i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.

Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.

------ OO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.

i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.

shawnee mission east '25

she/ her

lucy.pace@icloud.com

smepaceleonard@gmail.com

• tech > truth
• i feel good about my decisions in a policy v policy round and a k v policy round
• be nice have fun :))))

Debate at Kansas State from Treaties (2001) – Courts (2006), Coached at Kansas State on Middle East (2007) & Agriculture (2008), Coached at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for Weapons (2009) & Immigration (2010). I was at Johnson County Community College from Middle East (2011) to Space (2020).

I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- debatelearningdotcom@gmail.com (just copy and past that exact e-mail)

If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.

My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.

I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated

I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.

Policy arguments are fine by me.

Quirks with Counterplans- I think consultation and conditions are more cheating, than not cheating, but up for debate. I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.

Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.

Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams.

Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.

One other caveat about framework. I do not believe that affirmatives must provide a counter interpretation. The affirmative has not forwarded a way to debate in the 1ac, therefore it is the burden of the negative to explain their version of debate and why it's good. This allows affs to just impact turn framework as presumption has flipped in this instance.

With that said, framework is the last pure debate. I very rarely see the better team not win. It's been too hashed out for many if any gotcha moments