Last changed on
Tue October 4, 2016 at 8:45 AM EDT
Debate Experience:
I debated LD for five years on the national circuit for Bainbridge Island and then Eastside Catholic in Washington. I am currently a freshman at NYU.
The best way to get me to pick you up is to clearly explain why you deserve to win the round. This means a few things:
First, it means that even though speed is perfectly fine, make sure you slow down for important taglines and authors that you want me to write down for sure. I will try to flow everything, but if you are going too fast or are too unclear, I won’t always be able to get it. The best advice I got as a debater was to slow down a bit at the end of every speech and explain why you win. This goes a long way with judges. If you are going too fast or being unclear, I will yell clear or slow up to three times. After that, I’ll keep trying to flow but I can’t promise I’ll get everything down.
Second, it means that it doesn’t matter what you run or how you debate as long as you explain how what you are running wins the round. When I debated, the phrase I hated hearing most from judges was “I don't understand your argument its too weird” before getting dropped. Sometimes this was the judges fault — they simply wouldn't accept weird arguments as legitimate in round. Yet a lot of times it was because of my failure to take the extra step to explain why my weird argument and my opponents mishandling of it was enough to win me the round. If you run weird arguments well and explain why they win you the round, I will be entertained and impressed, just please make sure to explain it — if its built to confuse your opponent its going to confuse your judge too. The only caveat to this is that if you run something weird that is built to confuse, take cross-examination seriously. Your opponent deserves to have their questions answered, and if they are confused, I could be too. Answering questions in cross-examination respectfully and qualitatively makes yourself look stronger as a debater and probably helps you in round. If you can’t win the round without ignoring questions in cross-examination, you probably don't deserve to win the round.
Third, don’t stand up in your 1NR or 2AR and extend a bunch of stuff saying “they dropped this” and then nothing else. Explain why you deserve the win because they dropped it. If I have a bunch of “he dropped this” on both sides with no weighing or extrapolation as to what this means in the round, theres no way I can determine who wins. If you are limited on time, pick the most important drops and explain why those win you the round — this goes way further.
Fourth, don’t take an opponent that is clearly less skilled than you for granted. Act respectfully and don’t assume I’m going to pick you up just because you can talk ten times faster than them. I am not going to pick you up because you can cover everything without explaining why you win. I’m not saying go easy, just don’t act like you are better than them and assume you win the round before it even starts — treat them with respect.
Fifth, run whatever you are best with. I’ve seen all styles of debate, and have won and lost to each. I understand how LARP, Ks, Theory, T and other types of arguments work, but don’t expect me to do the work for you. If you understand theory enough to run it, you should be able to explain why you win off of it. I’ll go into a little bit of detail for each main types:
LARP: I was primarily a LARP debater for my last two years of high school debate and I love when it is run well. A few pointers: 1) be very clear with link-chains for long and complex cases — if I don’t understand it I cant pick you up. 2) be prepared to do weighing and make sure you do it well and clearly so I understand how it plays in the round. 3) make it interesting — you have so many options with LARP make it unique and fun.
Tricky Framework (non-K): BE VERY CLEAR AND CRYSTALIZE!!! As a debater, going up against complex frameworks was always the hardest debates and although I got better, beating them back was always my weakness. Ultra-specific frameworks are impressive and very effective, but can also extremely confuse both your opponent and your judge. If you rely on a confusing and extremely well-researched framework to win the round, unless you think you can summarize it clearly and explain why it wins you the round, you might not want to pref me. That being said, I will absolutely flow it and will definitely pick you up if you explain it clearly and explain why it wins you the round.
Ks: In some ways, I have similar expectations with critical frameworks as I do with normal frameworks. In general, I love good Ks, just please please explain the link chain that goes through it and how your opponent links into the K. Be respectful to your opponent if they are confused, because I probably am too then, and if you clarify in cross-x for them you also clarify to me.
Theory/T: I love good theory debates, plain and simple. I default RVI unless you explain why they don't get one. Please slow down a little for interp/violation and the taglines of each standard and explain the meaning. You can’t captivate the applicability of a theory/t shell completely out-of-round, so don't just pull theory out of your theory file and run it blindly. Apply it to the round and explain what I should do with it on the flow. I love theory and love heavy theory rounds, but it can go horribly wrong — don’t make me judge that.
