Lansing Novice Night

2019 — Lansing, KS/US

Madelyn Atkins Paradigm

5 rounds

Not Submitted

Travis Babcock Paradigm

8 rounds

Top Level

2017-2020: Mill Valley High School - Education, Immigration and Arm sales
2020- present: University of Missouri Kansas City

Please add me to email chain - millvalleybb@gmail.com

Pronouns are He/Him

Don't shake my hand

aff stuff

read a plan text or don't I have been on both sides

a framing page is not a sufficient answer to a disad

framework

framework is good insofar as it usually makes tests the affs on key issues like liberalism and pragmatism

Fairness is an impact (not a good one), but usually a better internal link

Theory

Theory debates are good, condo is usually good

please do line by line

Kritiks

love em - i think alternative debating has become a lost art and can make or break a k debate

I have read marx, security, baudrillard, and bifo

if you are going to read a massive overview and then just say "i answered this above" for the rest of the speech expect your speaks to tank

da's

winning timeframe and turns case is a pretty fast way to win my ballot

cp's

obviously this is decided on the theory debate, but I felt like I should add my biases

functional pics: cheating---------------------------------------------X-----not cheating

word pics: cheating-X-------------------------------------------------not cheating

process: cheating-------------------------X-------------------------not cheating

delay: cheating---------------X-----------------------------------not cheating

consult: cheating------------------X--------------------------------not cheating

uq: cheating-------------------------------------------------X-not cheating

agent: cheating------------------------------------X--------------not cheating

threaten: cheating-------------------------------x-------------------not cheating

random things

Your speaks start at 28.7 and then go up or down

Saving a doc and emailing isn't prep

Don't steal prep/Don't clip cards

Thomas Babcock Paradigm

8 rounds

2016-2020; Mill Valley High School - China, Education, Immigration and Arm sales
2020-Present; University of Missouri Kansas City

Please add me to email chain - Tomoose100@gmail.com

Pronouns are He/Him

In the words of Sohail Jouya "I demand that you have fun".

If anything isn't clear just ask me before round.

Don't shake my hand

As long as you aren't breaking tournament rules. Do whatever you want and I will vote based on the flow. Just make smart arguments, and at the end of the debate explain to me why you should win.

Tech > Truth

Please don't give me a concussion when I look at your speech doc

aff stuff

read a plan text or don't I have been on both sides

If you don't have a plan text atleast try to be tangentally related to the topic

a framing page is not a sufficient answer to a disad

framework

Framework is good insofar as it usually makes tests the affs on key issues like liberalism and pragmatism

Fairness is an impact (not a good one), but usually a better internal link

Theory

Theory debates are good, condo is good within reason

please impact it out

Kritiks

Love em - Just explain whatever you are saying - You don't get a pass if you are reading a K I have read before

I have read Marx, Security, Baudrillard, Bifo and Agamben

da's

winning timeframe and turns case is a pretty fast way to win my ballot

specific links are better, but not needed

cp's

as long as it's not absolutely ridiculous ur probably fine.

Also just cause it is a CP doesn't mean it automatically solves

Most impact D is probably better than the hotlines CP

random things

I flow Cross-X - Open Cross-X always

Your speaks start at 28.5 and then go up or down

Saving a doc and emailing isn't prep

Don't steal prep/Don't clip cards

Zachary Botkin Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amber Dawson Paradigm

3 rounds

third year debater @ lansing

do whatever you want, have fun and don't be mean. thanks

Andrew Flory Paradigm

3 rounds

Last updated 9/23/19

Given how I'm currently in my senior year of highschool, I'm probably judging a novice debate tournament for you/your students is you're reading this. (If this is out of date, email me and I'll update it) Given that fact, I'll keep things fairly simple:

1. I'll vote on anything that isn't offensive

2. I won't vote for you if you're discriminatory in the round towards anyone (including your own partner)

3. Unless you don't have a choice, try to run arguments you understand

4. If a round is close, I'm going to prefer one card with good warrants over 5 cards with weak warrants.

5. Please give roadmaps if you know what they are.

6. Please don't be extremely cocky or arrogant. I won't vote against you for this, but I will give you lower speaks.

Here's a more in-depth version if you want it:

I'm pretty tab and will vote on just about anything. As long as you don't say/do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, bigoted, etc., I'm probably not going to get mad at you for anything in a round.

A big thing for me is when the Aff team knows what they're talking about. The more confidently you're able to deliver your arguments, the better off you're going to be with me. This largely goes for neg as well. I'll be much more lenient on this earlier in the season though!

You probably shouldn't run kritiks or counterplans if you don't understand how they work.

I'm obviously somewhat familiar with topic literature and will know what your debate words mean, but you still should explain your argument to me to ensure that I know what you're talking about.

I don't vote on any arguments not brought up in the 2NR or 2AR, so make sure those speeches summarize why you won the round.

Good evidence is better than bad evidence; bad evidence is (usually) better than no evidence at all.

If you have any more questions, feel free to email me at andrew.flory@att.net

John Havel Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

William Holladay Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Brendan Joyce Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Stephen Kautt Paradigm

8 rounds

Hello, I am Stephen Kautt, I am a traditional debater, but know how to listen to technical arguments, so if you are reading ks in open just to cheat and win, I will know. Here are a couple things to make sure you do when I am your judge.

Topicality

I like topicality, but do not make topicality the focus of the debate, do not make it the one thing you go for, unless it makes sense, I will vote on T if the aff does not do a good job answering the parts of T, also make sure you extend your counter interpretation and the impact of the T.

Disads

I have ran disads a ton, so I know whats going on. Make sure when you run a disad, I buy the link chain, I do not want some stupid link chain to make me believe that the Aff leads to your impact. Also make sure you extend your link, impact, and internal link. Just extend and make me buy the argument. If the Aff is able to make me believe there is no link or there is no impact, then I will flow the disad to the aff.

Counterplans

I have ran counterplans a ton, so I know whats going on. Make sure the counterplan is able to solve the aff, make sure the cp has a net benefit, if you lose the net benefit you lose the cp. I also love perms, read a lot of them but do not forget to extend them, or answer them on the neg.

Kritik

I know what ks are, and i do not mine hearing, them be careful though, i am especially attentive when it comes to framework. And be careful, I am attentive, I will hear if you make the debate space unsafe on the topic of race or gender.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I enjoy debate, I am excited to hear everyone debate, just listen to what I said above, and listen and have fun. Debate is all about having fun.

Cant wait to judge you,

Stephen

Chloe Kautt Paradigm

8 rounds

Currently a third-year debater at Lansing SR

If it's allowed add me to the email chain: chloe.kautt.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers or gender neutral are fine

Basic Preferences

-Don't be an ass, debate is a fun activity and we are all here to learn don't let your crappy attitude get in the way of anyone's learning experience

-Read any racist, sexist, homophobic, or any offensive argument in front of me and expect to loose the round and get 0 speaks. I've had someone impact turn queer theory and the past and it didn't go well for them.

-I'm pretty expressive about different arguments so if you see a head nod while I'm flowing, I guess you're doing something good

-If you are flashing speeches, I would also like a copy of it

Theory

Condo is fine as long as you don't read egregious numbers of counter plans

Topicality

I'll deafult to competing interps. You should do analysis on the impacts you have. Don't just give me "FAiRneSs and EdUcaTion aRe ImpActs" explain to me why they are

Disads

I like specific links I don't know who doesn't but that's the tea.

Counter Plans

-I'll go with Jamie Welch on this one. DON'T SAY CP SAY COUNTERPLAN! If you say it I'll laugh to myself

-I don't like PICS that much, but I've run them so don't think you can't run one in front of me- you should have blocks on how to answer PICS bad though

-the better the solvency advocate, the better the counterplan

K

I've run them and I've gone for them. Feel free to read anything but Nietzche and Baudrillard. I am the most familiar with neolib, fem, settler colonialism, and militarism. If you plan on reading one in front of that isn't those, please be sure to explain it. You should have specific links too, that's always a good thing. You can have an alt or you can go for the linear DA, whatever you think the best strat is, go for it

K affs

Like I said before, I don't care what you read in front of me. I would prefer if you read one with some residual link to the topic. If your aff has literally no link what so ever to the topic, probably gonna lean more on neg for framework. Please be prepared to answer framework. For framework, you need to explain to me what the impacts are. Fairness to me is an internal link to clash and education, but if you think it is a legitimate impact go for it. If you plan on reading one in open, please talk to your coach about framework, the last things I want to see is you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. If you read a K aff in open for clout, you are doing more harm for the group you are talking about. Doing it for a ballot is not the best way to debate. That being said, if it is a strange K aff explain it

Christopher LaPee Paradigm

8 rounds

I vote for the good arguments

John Lehan Paradigm

8 rounds

Affiliations/Experience

Mill Valley High School third year debater.

Basic Round Preferences

If tournament legal, add me to the email chain- lehanjoh000@usd232.org

Phones are acceptable timers.

Big Picture

- I vote based on substance over performance, but performance may be necessary to convey your substance. Tech and truth are equally valid; win why your argument matters more.

-I believe in equal access to all arguments for all debaters; any debater can run any argument, no matter their background. Diversity based arguments need to have substance and win why that argument wins the round.

Form

-Performance helps convey your substance. The argument is only as good as its speaker. Speak well enough to convey your point and I will consider it in my RFD. Exceptional performances will win my speaker points.

- If I have the evidence in front of me, I can likely keep up with any speed. However, if speed sacrifices annunciation, you risk your analysis being lost. Speed doesn't make you cool, it gives you more time for analysis, so speak clearly first and quickly second.

- Understand your evidence, and link it to your arguments and your opponents. I likely understand your evidence and can guess at your point, but analysis on how evidence affects the round as a whole makes it infinitely more important to my ballot.

- Respect your opponents. Even bad arguments warrant an explanation of why they're bad. Debating isn't easy, so don't make it miserable for your opponents. Go for the win, but make debating positive for both sides.

- 2NR/2AR are the most important speeches. I vote based on the content of these speeches; I won't vote on something you didn't revisit. Frame the round, encompass opponent arguments, and connect your evidence. Give me a reason to vote for you.

- Use your speech time effectively. You should be able to fill speech time, but if you can't, don't drag on forever just to hear the sound of your own voice. Don't give your opponents extra prep time just to repeat points.

Function

- Topicality used as a legitimate shield will not struggle to win my ballot, provided it is argued fully. This also means it's not a reverse voting issue; drop T at any time. Topicality used against a potentially topical aff can still win my ballot, but the argument needs to be both complete and specific, with in-depth analysis that reflects an understanding of T.

- Kritiks and K-Affs avoid the main topic. I won't be as familiar with all the nuances of the argument, so proper explanation will be required. Additionally, framework should be utilized to explain why your argument outweighs arguing about the topic.

- Generic DAs are fine, but must be linked to the specific affirmative plan. This doesn't mean you necessarily need a case specific link card, although that will help, but like every other piece of evidence you read, explain how the Generic DA applies to this specific plan.

- Unanswered framework, if extended properly, will win my ballot. Framework tells me exactly how to vote, so ignoring it means you agreed I should vote for the other team. Just reading a framework card isn't running framework, analysis is required as to how your case fits within your framework and the opponent's does not, as well as why that framework is good for debate.

- Arguments about how debate ought to function should evenly split grounds. Unlike other arguments in debate, theory doesn't deny everything the opponent says, it allows for an even round.

- Analytics are valid arguments. Evidence with good credentials will likely outweigh analytics, but teams must still explain why analytics shouldn't be weighed in a round.

- A strong aff plan should hold up under multiple points of scrutiny. Conditionality is acceptable, although conditional counterplans are a legitimate point of debate.

- Both teams should have offense. Give me a reason you should win, not just why your opponents will lose.

Kevin Lopez Paradigm

2 rounds

Novice tournaments in 2017 and 2018

Grace McLeod Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Samuel Nuñez Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Devin Rice Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Tanner Smith Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Olivia Sourivong Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Madeline Souser Paradigm

8 rounds

+0.1 speaks if u use a membean word in your rebuttles - max: 0.5

Amaya Starks Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Nicholas Strickland Paradigm

8 rounds

If you read a applicable Baudrillard card +.3 speaks, no cap

Oil = feelings

I’m 0% policy, 100% made up of mistakes but i will definitely vote on a k, you just need to explain kritiks well

William Strickland Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Vaughan Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Alyssa Wiegers Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Marcus Woodcock Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Brett Zimmerman Paradigm

8 rounds

"Learn lots, have fun." - Sean Duff

ana gonzalez Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi, I'm Ana you can call me Banana if you'd like.

I'm currently 3rd year debater at Lansing High School

if the tournament allows it i would like to be on the email chain - anag.debate@gmail.com

If you have any questions you can email me at this email ^^^^^

if you are using a flash i would like them as well

I usually email comments unless its not allowed at the tournament

To start off

- If you're being an ass expect me to be a B. Debate is a fun learning environment don't ruin that.

- If you are being Homophobic, Racist, Sexist, or offensive in anyway expect a 0 spks.

- i'm comfortable with speed as long as you make it clear when you're going on to a new page and new tags. Novi should NOT spread IMO cause as 1st years people are still getting used to the environment of debate.

- i'm sorry but if you look like u just rolled out of bed i always have an extra brush you may use after the round. Don't be offended if i giggle please its not personal i promise.

Ks

- don't read it if you don't understand it!

- make sure that you explain the entirety of the K

- i'm not super familiar with different Ks because i personally don't run them but just make sure that you explain them please. Just reading a poem and a card doesn't tell me anything.

K Affs

If you read a K Aff make sure you explain it and let me know what it says especially if its a weird one. I like clash so make sure you explain how it relates to the topic of the year in some way. If you are Open or Novi PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE talk to your coach about how to answer framework! i really like seeing people knowing what they are talking about.

Counterplans/DAs/Turns/T

-I dont really care what you run aslong as you have specific links and stuff that clashes with the AFF case.

-If its a small AFF run T. I vote on T if its done right so make sure that you have your interp, Grounds, Limits, Violation, and Voters. To answer T make sure that you either say that "We meet their def" and explain how, or have a counter def.

-With turns make sure that you are explaining how they cause their own impx.

Case

ALWAYS hit on case! roast TF out the case without being a dick please, hit the stocks especially (SHITS- Solvency, Harms, Inherency, T, Significance) if the AFF cant solve then ofc im gonna lean to Neg cause it be like that sometimes bro. If you dont hit on case then youre telling me that the plan can still solve for all the things they claim even though in ur DAs say they can cause extinction or whatever you run.