El Dorado NoviceJV
2017 — El Dorado, KS/US
Adam Akins Paradigm
Mariah Armstrong Paradigm
Hanif Ashraf Paradigm
Ethan Benson Paradigm
Brittney Berry Paradigm
Joe Boyd Paradigm
Zach Brown Paradigm
Abbie Conrad Paradigm
Maureen Corcoran Paradigm
Peter Crevoiserat Paradigm
Kevin Dao Paradigm
Marycruz Del Real Paradigm
Wendy Dies Paradigm
Reagan Dillard Paradigm
Myranda Drake Paradigm
Isaiah Eaton Paradigm
Noah Enders Paradigm
Ben Engle Paradigm
Marie Flores Paradigm
Kara Fortier Paradigm
Jenna Gorton Paradigm
Donna Graham Paradigm
Katie Graham Paradigm
Noah Graham Paradigm
4 years at derby high school in kansas
freshman at george mason
please put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
talk as fast as you want, but clarity is key
debate is a game
i will read as little as possible after the debate, id rather make my decision based on the speeches.
Case- make sure to utilize the 1ac and never forget the aff, case debates are often shallow but is a key question in most rounds. impact turns are always fun to watch
DA/CP- these are good. i think that condo is good but will vote for the team that better executes theory
T- love topicality, but often not a great choice depending on the topic. make sure to go slower in these debates so that i can get everything
FW- i will vote for an aff without a plan but often lean toward neg framework arguments. no plan affs should definitely at least have a loose relation to the topic
K- assume i don't know a lot about your K, i went for some in the past but dont really ever do that now.
CX- is a speech and matters a lot. when 3 minutes is up i will stop listening, also please do not steal prep (flashing/email is not included here)
dont clip cards - its dishonest and bad for debate, i will drop you for it - burden of proof is high for a team that accuses
Jason Hamlin Paradigm
Alec Hinecker Paradigm
I debated at Derby HS, I currently debate at Wichita State
If you have any questions feel free to email me at email@example.com
Quick sum up: I can flow you speaking unless you are unclear, I will not try to keep up with you if you don’t try to make sense. I am fine with every policy argument. I am fine with anything critical arguments, just explain it.
My 5 important thoughts:
Thought 1. Debate is a game, but that doesn’t mean you can’t cheat. Critical and policy arguments are both things I did in high school, going for any CP and DA to things like Nietzsche, cap and Settlerism (I lean Policy because I understand it better). Critical affirmatives are perfectly okay for me; however, I personally think they aren’t always the most strategic. Against most critical affirmatives I usually went for FW - that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s abusive always, however.
Thought 2. Speaking is IMPORTANT. While I’m personally not very influenced by Pathos I think Logos and Ethos are both very important in debate: they will help with speaking points and my decision. Debate is still a persuasive activity.
Thought 3. Things like framing contentions and soft impacts on face don’t sway me personally. I really enjoy big impact debate with great affirmative and negative strategy. And honestly most framing contentions aren’t very persuasive to me -they don't accomplish a ton (this doesn’t mean if they aren’t executed well I won’t vote for it). You still need to answer specific impacts and DAs/Ks.
Thought 4. Amending CPs are fine. I think that the neg gets a lot of leeway with CPs,things like late 2AR explanation are boarderline cheating. The states, conditions, and consult CPs are probably cheating
Thought 5. The way I evaluate a new argument in rebuttals is if the other team could predictably answer that argument to the full ability where the aff or neg can exploit it. This can be very important in a lot of messy debates, and I think that teams get away with a lot.
Added-thought: Tech v. Truth: what I’ve learned is that both are important. If someone conceded a DA they concede it. However, if you’re going for a link argument that just isn’t true even if it’s conceded, I will be less likely to vote for that argument; truth is important to some degree with specific arguments.
Speaking: Speaking style is important; however, it does NOT require sacrificing speed. Being fast can be important, especially in debate. Speed isn’t everything though, and many young debaters don’t understand that. For flowing, it’d be easiest if you were as clear as possible, if not it’s a huge ethos kill and I will clear you. Things like persuasion are important too, line-by-line isn’t always the most important thing and things like ethos will make writing a ballot much easier. It also helps with speaks - I will start at 28.5 and work my way up and down. These things will help you a lot.
Counterplans: Perms don’t make any sense unless they solve the net benefit, or if the NB links to the CP. Intrinsic and Severance perm theory aren’t voters, but are reasons why rejecting the perm solves. A good cp will make the debate easier. You can also check my thoughts for other opinions on which CPs are legit. Judge kick is implied in condo, I believe that absent the aff giving good reasons why I shouldn't judge kick, I will.
Disadvantages: They're fine. If your DA doesn’t make any sense though, I will be more willing to believe aff arguments.
Case: if you make the right arguments it helps a lot, a good case debate is the best. Highly undervalued in debate. You shouldn’t ignore it. Also, I think judges give way to much leeway on case for the aff, a DA and case strategy can work. Killing a case can boost speaks.
Kritiks: I don’t know every K lit, I went for the K, and it can be strategic. Explain your links and impacts, why the alt solves or why it doesn’t need too, and just make sense. Be clean. The best K debaters are the ones who can win the flow without an annoying or arbitrary overview, and can use they’re link to make turns and solvency deficits. If you can do that you’re ahead of the game. But I am very framilar with cap FYI.
Kritikal affs: I thought this needed it's own section. I have 3 primary issues with these debates that need to be clear for me to be able to warrant voting for it. 1) I think you need to have clear impact explanation and compare it to why it outweighs framework, fairness, education. If you can win I should weigh your aff against framework impact comparison is very important. I also have never read one ---- please remember that. 2) SLOW DOWN. Most K debates I have seen read overviews and make arguments so fast it can be hard to comprehend what you are saying and apply it to the debate. K affs are suppose to be more be more pathos oriented and persuasive, why should i think the topic is bad, framework, the K, why perms are good, etc. These mechanisms are important, very. Slowing down and making 3-5 arguments instead of 7-9 can be more persuasive and win the debate. It also makes it easier for me. 3) Tell me what to aff does! Solvency mechanisms are important, how does it spill up/over, why is it important. For negative teams, I think presumption is a persuasive argument and can be a good winner.
Framework: not much different than T honestly, but there are 2 specific things I think you MUST/should include to win this debate. 1) truth testing is a persuasive argument to me. Its a presumption argument and a limits magnifier. If you win it is hard to contest the aff a theoretical level without sounding racist or without being problematic Can win a debate. It is persuasive - but you have to do it properly. 2) You need to have a theoretical defense of policy education, making, decision making, topic, etc. If you are missing this component I find "fairness" as a weaker option. Do I think it's an impact? Yes. Do I think it's a 'good' impact? Not necessarily.
T: awesome, just make sense. Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, and reasonability I see best as an "we meet" modifier. Do your impact work, please.
Theory: not the biggest fan, I truely don’t believe it’s a “reject the team” argument ever. It can make CPs go away, just be smart with it. To much is overkill, and I think if it's conceded it isn't always a reason to win. I have found, however, with respect to critical arguments severing reps theory arguments can be effective.
Zubair Khan Paradigm
Pricilla Kralicek Paradigm
Steven Kurtzweil Paradigm
Dominik Lett Paradigm
Madison Lopez Paradigm
Reid McConnaughey Paradigm
Christian McCoy Paradigm
Madi Mitchell Paradigm
Robert Phillips Paradigm
Collin Rofsillon Paradigm
Alece Stancin Paradigm
Catherine Todd Paradigm
Catherine Todd Paradigm
Aidyn Travis Paradigm
Matt Treto Paradigm
Dat Trinh Paradigm
Thomas Tuck Paradigm
Thomas Tuck Paradigm
Brady Volkmann Paradigm
Rebekah Wagley Paradigm
Makenzie Watson Paradigm
Erin Watts Paradigm
Marissa Welch Paradigm
Caleb Williams Paradigm
Sadie Williams Paradigm
Taylor Willis Paradigm
Kierra Wright Paradigm
Stella Yang Paradigm
Please add me to the email chain: stella.yang0317(at)gmail(dot)com
Background: I am a former debater for Wichita East. I debated for four years from 2012-2016, primarily doing open debate. I've judged 1-2 tournaments a year since graduating, so I'm not super familiar with the topic.
Preferences: I prefer a moderate rate of delivery. I am most familiar with DA/CP/Case debate. Please limit yourself to 1 or 2 perms on each CP. I am not a good judge for T and K debates (that's not to say topicality isn't important). If you do run a K, please explain it well to me.
Round Etiquette: Be respectful to one another, that includes opponents and partners. I don't care about Open CX, but if 1 partner does most of the answering/asking that will affect speaker points. Don't steal prep. Don't ask if everyone is ready, everyone is ready and will say something if they aren't.