Flint Hills After School DB8 at Shawnee Hts
2018 — Topeka, KS/US
Cade Blenden (TH) Paradigm
Trinity Brockman (MAN) Paradigm
Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”
Four years at @ Manhattan High School
Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High
Everything is up for debate.
I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...
However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. 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 am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.
Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.
***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.
Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.
Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.
Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.
It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.
fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won.
Any other questions just find me and ask.
Crysteen Brown (MAN) Paradigm
Juliana Caballero (TW) Paradigm
Irene Caracioni (TH) Paradigm
Isabella Carter (HP) Paradigm
Alivia Cook (WR1) Paradigm
Hayley Cruce (TW) Paradigm
Katie Davis (Emp) Paradigm
Kallee Del Biaggio (WR3) Paradigm
Ethan Dozier (JC) Paradigm
Topicality is a voting issue but it needs voters. No voter= no reason to vote on it
Cross-ex: Be polite i.e. don't yell at each other
Run arguments you know how to run don't try an arg you don't understand.
for spreading don't slur or go so fast i cant understand or I won't flow it
Sam Feleay (Sea A) Paradigm
Eli Friedli (WR3) Paradigm
Maddie Gates (Hay) Paradigm
Tyler Harwood (Sea B) Paradigm
KJ Jones (MAN) Paradigm
Lylah Keyes (SHHS) Paradigm
Kashif Khan (WR3) Paradigm
Teagan Kress (Sea A) Paradigm
Anthony Lake (SHHS) Paradigm
Eadon Marstall (MAN) Paradigm
Molly McClimans (Sea B) Paradigm
Harley McWilliams (WR4) Paradigm
Logan Michael (WR2) Paradigm
Bo Miller (SHHS) Paradigm
Mary Morrison (Sea B) Paradigm
Lena Mose (Emp) Paradigm
emporia high school 2015-2019
yes add me to your email chain: email@example.com
i did policy debate for all four years of high school and a semester of college debate at KU. i ran mostly policy arguments in high school but i spent most of my time running Ks and K affs my last year and a half in debate.
high school experience = two time DCI qualifier, 5A two speak policy debate finalist, and two time NCFL qualifier in LD.
yes spread. yes be clear.
i will listen to most of what you have to say. here's what i think is super important/things people mess up a lot:
1. win your aff -- case is super important and if you win it, then you can win a lot of other stuff on the flow (like case o/w and using the aff as an impact filter)
2. engage with arguments and understand your arguments -- shadow extending cards/making claims with no warrants does not persuade me. clash is good.
3. good cx -- a lot of people don't have goal oriented cross examinations anymore and it's pretty sad. cross ex is a speech. you can get a lot from cx, and when you do you should point those things out in your speeches.
4. impact calc -- do impact calc. often times debaters don't do good enough impact calc and it becomes difficult for me to judge debates. probability, magnitude, and timeframe are important things and you should talk about them. doing impact calc is what will help you write out the ballot for me.
i default to competing interps unless convinced otherwise. i will vote on T and i enjoy t debates. limits is probably the only convincing impact to T. obviously warrant out fairness and education claims, but if you don't talk about limits in your 2nr it will be easier for me to vote aff.
theory debates are pretty cool. i'm familiar with condo debates. if you wanna go for it, go for it. please go slow on theory though, spreading at top speed on theory will become frustrating for me.
love a good disad debate ngl. if you can give me a good story and do some good line by line AND win impact calc, then you have a good shot with most DAs.
i like K debates. these are probably some of my favorite debates to judge. as long as you can explain your K and it isn't some death good stuff then i can evaluate it. but for reference, i ran queer theory, cap, and latinx theory in high school so I'm most familiar with those arguments however I am also pretty familiar w/set col and fem ir. perm debates on the K are fun and good overviews are also fun.
i also like good alts. alts that are specific and well explained will def boost speaks
i like creative CPs and just any CP that tests the aff well. CPs are good and should be competitive. please understand your perms.