The Quarantine Classic
2020 — Discord, US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePlease include me on any email chains:
General/Not format specific:
- Above all, I will not tolerate any discrimination in round or out of round. Debate is a space that needs to be safe and open to all debaters.
- I'm mostly tech over truth but I have a higher bar for bad arguments.
- I'm a huge shill for Ks (but I have 90s K debater tastes), so if you run and understand Schlag I'll give you perfect speaks
- I have read a lot of literature, and I have experience with philosophy from the pre-Socratics to critical race theory. That said, I will prefer good explanation. If you can't explain your phil well, I won't vote for you.
- I'm okay with fw v K debate, but I really prefer if you substantively address the K, so either prove it wrong or K it back.
K Debate:
I want to expand on the above point a little bit, because I think there are two really bad attitudes toward K Affs (and really Ks in general) that pop up in debate rounds. The first is fear: Debaters are afraid of K affs, and so instead of trying to address why they're wrong, they use framework and theory arguments. Kritiks operate just like any other argument; arguments have an epistemology and an ontology. The difference between a kritik and, for example, stock issues, is that debaters using stock issues are often not aware of their own epistemology and ontology because they're normalized within the structure of debate. DEFEND YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY! Kritiks want to tell you your ways of knowing and categorization are in some way bad, you need to say that they're not. The K is wrong, and here's why. The second is disgust: debaters often think that K affs are, in the words of someone I otherwise consider an excellent debater, "cheating." I think this kind of attitude is bad for debate, full stop. While I will vote for framework if it wins the flow, I think framework v K arguments are usually bad, and win most often because debaters are unprepared to deal with them. The K is just another argument, so prove it wrong. Contrary to what I think is popular belief, debate isn't primarily a research event; debate is a critical thinking event. Use your brain to address the K, not some static, stale conception of debate that will instantly be proven to be anti-black/sexist/capitalist or whatever the K is you're hitting.
- My default interpretation of debate is that the only rules are speech time and speech order, and the only normative standards are fairness and education, but I can be convinced to change any of these positions
Policy specific:
I don't really have much else to say. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.
Pref sheet (policy)
1. Topical K affs/KvK debate/Topical performance affs/Ks on neg
2. Fw v K/policy affs/non-T K affs
3. Trad debate
LD Specific:
I am not a huge fan of tricks.
Pref sheet (LD)
1. Topical K affs/KvK debate
2. LARP rounds/Trad debate (just as long as it isn't too slow. I get that trad LD is a speech event but come on)
3. Tricks
Hello! I am Michelle and I competed in ld, policy and worlds in high school in both progressive and traditional styles
email: zheng.zhang.michelle@gmail.com
Evidence
- please do not spend your entire time arguing which author has more phds. it is fine to point out how one author is a random person running a blog compared with a college professor; however, you still need to address the inherent logic.
- make an argument, dont just read evidence. make sure understand your evidence and can anayzle and explain it
- even if you don't have cards, make sure you have solid analysis and logic.
Questioning
- i don't do flex prep, cx is an important time to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of your case and topic.
- be civil during cx
Speed & Clarity
- Although I am fine with some speed, arguments and warrants need to be carefully enunciated and explained. If you are going too fast, I will say clear. After the third clear, I will simply stop flowing (this does not apply to worlds, do not spread)
- Please signpost and have clear explicit extensions of arguments/cards. Don't just say extend weller 17, explain the significance.
Timing
- Please time yourselves. I will also be keeping time. You can finish your sentence quickly once time is up.
- Use ALL of your prep time. You can always make your speech better. I will dock points if there is time left on either prep or speech time (I give a 10 sec leeway for speech)
- have voters, weigh the round, spoon feed me why I should vote for your side. Assume I know nothing and I am a blank slate
******************** ld specific ***********************
Framework
- If you are in Lincoln Douglas, there needs to be a framework (value and vc) (regardless if you are traditional or progressive) as it is suppose to be a philosophical debate. If you completely drop framework and the opponent points it out i will vote for the opponent but I will not be happy about it. I cannot evaluate something if I do not have the mechanism to evaluate it by.
- I strongly discourage running morality as the value with me but if you do end up runing morality as a value, please do not just say "the word ought indicates a moral obligation hence the value for today's round is morality" or "because the resolution has the word ought, the value is morality." explain the significance and importance of prioritizing morality. actually have someone back it up and have actual standards.
- DO NOT drop framework after the 1AC or the 1NC.
- tie fw throughout your case, make sure your case actually upholds your fw...
- I prefer you tie actual philosophy into the framework and throughout the case instead of it only being an impact calc debate but If you run phil, make sure you understand it and can explain it simply.
Other
I prefer a traditional debatefor LDbut I will vote on most things if well explained.
- No tricks or performance
- if you are running a cp, make sure its case specific and the aff can't just perm it.
- if you are running a k, make sure you understand and defend the epistemology and ontology. Also even if you are an expert on post or pre-fiat Ks, explain it simply to me and your opponent.
- it is going to be hard for me to vote on theory alone. if you are running theory, make sure it actually makes sense and isn't super generic. You need to weigh standards, voters, and justifications for paradigm issues. If you do run theory, do not ONLY run theory. Don't run shoe theory or stuff along those lines.
- Make sure you have kvis in your last speech and do some weighing of both the practical and moral implications.
- if your opponents drops an argument or you win an argument, and you want that to weigh in round, you need to mention they drop it, extend it, and explain why it matters
************************ worlds specific ****************************
take your opponents on their highest ground and then explain how they lose regardless.
Ask POIs!!! can be question or statement. Be strategic with your pois where it is when they are asked, how they are asked, or who is asking.
please stand for POIs