Yale Invitational
2012 — CT/US
Varsity Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.
The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.
This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.
Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.
Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)
Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.
I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.
Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.
Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.
Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.
Argument Development
For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.
Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay
For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.
We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.
I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.
Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.
newarksciencedebate@gmail.com
LD Debate Judge Paradigm. (Sometimes I judge PF, too.)
Updated for Jan/Feb 2013!
Preferences:
1. TYPES OF ARGS: I will listen to and consider any type of argument, no matter how unorthodox or unusual, so long as it:
a. Respects the format of LD (time limited one-on-one debate related to the bi-monthly topic.)
b. Is not intentionally rude, offensive, or without any easily recognizable redeeming educational/social value*.
If, however, the argument you make is:
a. Trivial, without rigor, or poorly thought through, and dealt with as such by your opponent;
b. Neither topical or LD-theoretical*;
and/or
c. Never justified via warrant/impact/link*...
I am not likely to vote off of it.
*Narratives may fit these categories. Please do not ever read a case that describes graphic crime in front of me. Medical stuff is totally fine. (Review: Domestic violence narrative? bad. Describing MDRTB? fine.)
I like very observant, insightful cases and refutation that presents not just an advocacy, but a carefully constructed world-view. I believe values/standards analysis are important, but I leave it up to the debaters to decide how they wish to handle them. I believe there must be something to which you link and impact back to, however, so that I can sign my ballot one way or the other. I will frequently comment on the quality of arguments made, both in-case and in-round, but I will only vote off material which is actively "in play" in the round. So:
2.STRAT: Establish your position/advocacy. Link. Impact. Weigh extensively. Tell me why I should vote for you. If you do not tell me what to do with a given point "x", I will not vote off it unless there is literally nothing else for me to vote off of. Do not assume that I will auto extend drops, or that I will impact/link/weigh cross applications for you. It's your job to tell me why you win. If something is important to my ballot, please tell me so, and spend time on it.
3. I have never-not-once-ever decided a round on PRESUMPTION, even though I came close once.There's always something better to vote on, even if it's skills. I do try to advance the better debater. 99.6% of the time that's also the winning debater.
4. SPEED is absolutely fine so long as you enunciate card author names. If you're unclear, I will pipe up and tell you so. I use "CLEAR!" as an all-purpose shout of existential angst, though, so it could mean you're stumbling, gasping, too high pitched, or mumbling. If I call clear, you should probably err on the side of repeating a sentence, as I don't/can't shout and flow at the same time. If I tell you you're too high pitched or squeaky, please don't take offense. I took two semesters of graduate speech pathology classes at Columbia. I am as equally annoyed by high pitched female voices as I am annoyed by high pitched male voices. Speaking too loudly at too high a pitch, especially if you're dehydrated, can permanently damage your vocal cords.
5. REGARDING THEORY: I gut check, but I have voted off theory a few times this year, and I am becoming more sympathetic towards well-structured theory. I think our community is slowly settling into a reasonable use of theory following two or three years of really cruddy shells and confusing rounds. The following represents my views on mediocre or bad theory:
98% of the time when people run theory, I find that there is no actual abuse. I dislike people who run theory counter-interps when they easily could have run an "I meet." To me, this constitutes THEORY BAITING. Baiting theory is an ocelot thing to do. Please just win on substance if you can meet the interp! I am sympathetic to "I meet." I am not very sympathetic to ground arguments, unless you explain to me why the only ground left to you is really, really ridiculous. I do think NIBS are for pens, not cases, but I will entertain multiple burdens that equally constrain both debaters. I will gut-check, but if you ask me to gut-check, I will also call cases and read everything super carefully. I am also a super cranky person when I have to read cases before signing a ballot, so invoke my own personal opinion at your own risk. I will accept and evaluate both "drop the debater/RVI" and "drop the argument" debates, but I prefer "drop the argument" and will default to that if you either don't give me a voter or forget to extend it. All that having been said, if you feel you HAVE to run theory against someone or something, go ahead and do it.
On the other hand, I love a good T debate and will happy listen to you guys bat definitions back and forth. Bad T debate is highly discouraged. If you don't know the difference, look up the structure of T shells online.
6. Other thoughts: I might be embroidering ("sewing") during your prep or cx. Ignore this. Busy hands = quiet mind. Try it sometime.
Please don't say, "Aracelis, I've read your paradigm, and you don't like to hear X," during a round. It creeps me out, it probably creeps your opponent out, and it's just... well, creepy.If you want to talk about my paradigm, do it before the round.
I love topic lit. I read large amounts of topic lit to help my team. If you lie about topic lit, I will know, and I'll be unhappy, even if it won't effect my vote. On the other hand, a deep command of topic lit is always impressive, so demonstrating technical mastery + deep understanding is the ideal way to earn yourself higher speaks.
7. Speaks: I don't hand out 30s often. Don't be offended. My typical range is 27.5-29.5. I will go lower for bad behavior. Solid rounds usually earn a 28 or 28.5 tie. Someone who is obviously better can expect a 29. At 29.5 and 30, you're showing me superior time allocation, amazing strategic organization, deep knowledge of the topic, and the sort of transcendent explanation of Truth that causes me to feel like your speech has contributed something to society. You should shoot for that goal, but not be disappointed if you fall short. Annoying, pathological, or just plain old weird vocal/inhalation habits will get you docked speaks unless I can detect that whatever you're doing is wholly involuntary (lisping, r/l/w issues, spasmodic dysphonia, post-infectious laryngitis...) I have a pretty good ear for the difference between voluntary/weird stuff you picked up at camp.
LAST BUT NEVER LEAST,
Please don't be an ocelot. The word "Ocelot" also has limited assonance with a word that describes mean people. In the literal sense, an Ocelot is a small predatory cat. In the metaphorical sense, an Ocelot is what you shouldn't be. Win without being small, predatory, and catty.
And, have fun and make friends. :D
I am currently the Director of Debate at Collegiate School, where I have now coached for three years. Evidently I'm doing something right, because the people at Big Lex awarded me the Michael Bacon Coaching Award this year (2013) Previously, I coached for half a season at Brooklyn Technical High School. I have also previously judged for Bronx High School of Science (but who hasn't?) and as an independently hired judge at various round-robins and tournaments. I taught at a camp for three summers: '04, '05, and '06, and I debated on Long Island/locally in the Northeast for three years: '00-01 to '02-'03.
The tactic of spreading is discouraged. Key factors: the logical consistency as well as thoroughness of the framework and contentions, a criterion that makes sense, ability to extend contentions throughout the rebuttals, avoidance of equivocation, respectful exchange, extended knowledge of references, explicitly express and reveal limitations of opponents construct, and, in the summary demonstrate the awareness of logical advantages without resorting to mere repetition of argument.
Debated LD - 1997 - 2001
Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present
Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017
I am open to all debating styles and can handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA if it's timely & makes sense. Make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me.
Debatemartinez@gmail.com - For the email chain.
Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.
I competed in LD debate from 2005-2009 for the Bronx High School of Science. I attended the TOC as a junior and senior, and cleared during the latter year. After graduating I coached at the Bronx High School of Science until approximately 2014. At least some coaches/debaters from that era should know who I am and be able to give some additional color on my paradigmatic views for anyone who finds the below unsatisfying. Unfortunately I have not judged since 2014, so while my views on certain arguments (and debate generally) may not have changed materially, I suspect norms in the community have. Therefore, what I write below may not be entirely useful (or sensical) to an LD debater competing in 2019.
Generally, I think debate is a forum for students to learn how to read and think critically in a competitive environment with relatively low stakes. Therefore as a judge I place no limits on the sorts of arguments you can and cannot make (theory, Ks, counterplans, narratives etc.). My default view is that the winner is the side that demonstrates there is a greater utilitarian benefit associated with voting for their respective side of the resolution, however this is a relatively easy presumption to rebut - either side can choose to make the standard/framework for evaluating impacts whatever they want (e.g., if their is some side-constraint or other overriding consideration that is more important than generic utilitarian impacts I will obviously listen without hesitation).
A few general notes: (i) I am stickler for substantive impact comparisons (the winner is likely the debater that does the better weighing/comparative analysis of the offense in the round) (ii) I don't think speaking speed is an issue, but clarity can be - if I don't hear an argument/understand it I cannot vote for it, and if I don't understand you in a speech I will visibly be disengaged (pen down, not flowing, etc.) (iii) extensions need to contain warrants.
While I try to adjudicate rounds in a tabula rasa manner, please be aware that your tabula rasa assumptions may differ from mine. Feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Please note that I will try to answer them to the best of my ability but I genuinely may not have an answer for some depending on the level of specificity.
As an aside, I really value original thinking and cleverness in debate - your ability to do either in round will probably result in additional speaker points.
As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.
I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.
I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.
For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.
Tabroom.com is mostly my fault. Therefore I'm out of the active coaching game, but occasionally will stick myself on a pref sheet as a free strike so I can judge in an emergency.
My history in the activity includes competing in parliamentary debate and extemp, coaching and judging a lot of extemp, PF, LD and some other IEs, policy and congress along the way. I've coached both champs and people who are lucky to win rounds, and respect both. I coached at Milton Academy, Newton South HS and Lexington HS in that order.
All: Racist, ableist, sexist, trans- or homophobic, or other directly exclusionary language and conduct is an auto-loss. Debate the debates, not the debater. I will apply my own standards/judgment, it's the only way I can enforce it.
Policy & LD: I'm not active but do regularly watch debates. I'm OK with your speed but not topic specific jargon. Be slower for tags and author names. If you're losing me I'll say clear a couple times, but eventually will give up flowing and you won't like what happens next. I won't lean on the docs to catch up and have zero shame in saying "I didn't get it so I didn't vote for it." If I don't understand it until the 2N/2AR I consider it new in the 2.
LD: I did a lot of LD in the late 90s until the mid 2000s, then mostly stopped, then started again at Lex and coached them for about eight years. So I'm comfy with both older-school framework debates and the LARP/policy arguments my kids mostly ran.
My threshold on theory tends to be high; dumb theory debates are part of why I stopped coaching LD. I wrote an article that people still card about how theory should be relegated to actual norm creation instead of tactical wins -- though if you card me as an attempt to flatter instead of actually understanding the point, I will probably be cross.
I also dislike debates about out of round conduct or issues. I can't judge based on anything that I did not see, such as disclosure theory, pre-round shenanigans, or "he said last debate that he'd do X and he didn't." I also will take a dim view towards post-rounding that crosses from questions into a 3AR/3NR and will adjust points to reflect that.
Don't tell me that the tab room won't let me do that. I can always do that.
K: I am sympathetic to K debate and its aims, and will frequently vote for it if it makes sense in the round, but Ks get no more gimme wins from me than any other argument. If it doesn't link or I don't get the impact or the alt sounds like we're supposed to stop all the world's troubles by singing campfire songs you'll probably lose.
I take a dim view on the type of K or identity debates that demand disclosure of identity from anyone in the room. I'm part of the LGBTQ spectrum, and when I was competing, I could not disclose that without risk to myself. I therefore flinch reflexively if you seem to demand to know anyone's place on various identity spectrums as the price of winning a debate. A place in debate should not be at the cost of their privacy.
That said, if you put your own identity in the round you therefore risk your identity being debated. Don't try to run a K and then call no tag-backs if someone tries to answer your stuff with your stuff.
Policy: I have less background in your activity than I do in LD. So I know the general outlines fine, as the events have converged, but I'm definitely going to need you to slow down just a titch especially if you're running the type of policy args that haven't crossed as much into LD, like T debates or specific theory/condo stuff. I'm very much not a fan of the politics debate and will have a very low threshold on no-link args, since I tend to believe politics almost never links anyway.
Also see the K section under LD.
PF: I mostly enjoy PF rounds and coached it as my only debate event for about 4 years at Newton South. I don't sneer at it like a lot of coaches from the LD/Policyverse might. However, there are a few things I really dislike that proliferate in PF.
1) Evidence shenanigans between speeches. Have your evidence ready for your opponent to read/review immediately. Your partner can create a doc while you speak, for crying out loud. If you fumble around with it and can't get your act together, you'll see your speaks dropping.
2) Evidence shenanigans during speeches. Look, PF speeches are short. I get it. But ultimately the decisions as to whether you're abusing evidence are mine to make and I will make them. Don't fabricate, make up, or infer things your evidence doesn't say because I will read and check anything that sounds suspicious to me, or your opponents call out. This includes PF Math™: taking numbers out of your ev and combining them in ways the author did not. I read a lot of news so the likelihood I know when you're making it up is rather high.
3) Good God most crossfires, especially the free-for-all at the end, make me want to stab my ears out. Here's where I import prejudices from LD and policy more than anything: cross is about setting up arguments and confirming things, not trying to corner and AHA! your opponents or sneaking in a third contention. Set up arguments, don't make them. If you try to extend something out of cross, that's not going to go well for you. If you are an obnoxious talking-show nitwit, that's REALLY not going to go well for you.
4) If you're playing the game of "Look How Circuit I Can Be Mr Policy/LD Judge!" and your opponent has zero idea of what's going on, I'm not impressed. Debate is engagement, and giving your opponent no chance to engage by design is pretty much an auto-loss in my book. That does not mean you should shy away from creative arguments. It means you must explain them so that everyone in the room can be expected to understand and engage with them as long as they're trying to.
High school:
Competed in LD and Policy
Qualified to NFL nationals and the TOC in LD in 2010
Post-High school:
Juan Diego- LD coach (fall 2010-spring 2012)
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy- LD coach (fall 2012-spring 2013)
Judging- I have been actively judging LD and policy since I graduated (2010). This last season I haven't judged much.
To preface the rest of my comments, let me first say that I think debate is your activity, not mine. I will do my best to evaluate the arguments that you present, in the way that you present them. I try to be as objective as possible. However, as some of you are aware, no judge is ever capable of leaving all of their biases at the door. Even the most staunch 'tabula rosa' judge is probably just a big liar. Instead of pretending like I am a blank slate, I think it is important to warn you of my predispositions against certain arguments or strategies so you can adjust accordingly.
The following list should NOT be interpreted as a list of arguments you should not run. Instead, it SHOULD be interpreted as a summary of my various thoughts on debate. In rounds where you find yourself reading an argument or executing a strategy mentioned here, you will know to proceed with caution, ensuring that you provide great warrants and solid extensions. If you are sure to do that, there shouldn't be any problem.
Feel free to ask me any specific questions you might have about my preferences as a judge.
How I see debate
Truth testing/Comparative worlds: My default view of debate is that it is a comparison of advocacies under a given normative framework. This preference is not hard an fast, though I very rarely am convinced to view the resolution as a question of truth. As an observation, truth testing has, in my experience, promoted blippy, low quality and one-sided debates. I have seen some gleaming exceptions to this, but they have been as rare as the Javan Rhino.
Speaks: It is unfortunate that such an important part of the activity is so thoroughly ambiguous. The following is a rough scale of how I assign speaks:
30: You were perfect. I can't think of a thing that could have been done better in this debate. It is not possible to receive a Loss-30. If you were perfect, you didn't lose.
29-29.9: Very, very, good debate. While there were some minor hiccups (maybe you were a bit unclear at times) the majority of the round was impressive.
28-28.9: This range is for good debaters who, despite some mistakes, performed well. Also, great debaters with some striking clarity issues will receive speaks in this range.
26-27.9: This is where most debaters will find themselves. If you made some significant mistakes, or if you were pretty difficult to follow, you will receive speaks in this range.
<26: No bueno. If you got less than a 26 from me, you must have done something pretty bad.
Theory: I apologize in advance if this section becomes a bit lengthy, but i find it necessary to rant about the theory debate. I have observed a trend in the LD community to revert to theory as the "A-strat" against certain opponents. While I think theory is an important check against abusive norms in the community, I see it frequently becoming a tool to exclude less technically proficient debaters from a potentially very compelling debate. That is bad. Don't do it. Ever. If I have to watch a round where you read theory against someone who clearly isn't capable in engaging the technical aspect of procedural arguments you will receive EXTREMELY low speaks. That being said, win with honor, it'll help you sleep at night.
Here are a couple of guidelines to determine if I will loath your theory position:
1- If you have an interpretation in your expando/folder/computer/mind that advocates a norm for the debate that is contradictory to the one you are running, I probably hate your theory argument. Let me explain what i mean. If your opponent would have been a victim of your theory assault regardless of how they interpret the resolution, your shell will make me a very angry judge indeed. Example: on the international court topic (Jan/Feb 2009) there were a lot of debaters running both "must defend one specific court" against debaters that defended the resolution as a general principal and "can't specify which court you are running" against those who specified which court they were using. This is bad debate. It ruins the rounds I have to judge and makes me hate getting up in the morning. Don't do that.
2- Questions of abuse- Let me start by saying that I prefer actual rather than potential abuse. However, I evaluate potential abuse as well given an argument for why I should.
a- If you claim real abuse, be able to point to a "no-link" or some other very clear example of how you have been abused. If you can't, don't claim in-round abuse. Remember "I couldn't run "X" because of their framework" is not real abuse. The abuse in that case is potential unless it has been run, and subsequently excluded by their interpretation.
b- If you are claiming potential abuse, you really need to have a very solid reason why this specific instance of potential abuse is particularly severe. I am generally pretty persuaded by arguments contesting the voter level of potential abuse claims, you must be ready to answer these.
3- Competing interpretations v. reasonability- I'll default reasonability but am very receptive to arguments to the contrary. I rarely evaluate a theory debate under a non-competing interpretations framework.
"Tricks": My general perception of arguments that are labeled as "tricks" is that they should be relabeled as "bad arguments that can win rounds through convolution and deception." You aren't being tricky, this guy is being tricky, you are being uneducational. If your argument is good enough to run, it is good enough to run well. Don't expect me to vote for positions that are missing necessary components.
Skepticism: I am extremely skeptical of these positions. As a warning, I've never found myself voting for this type of argument. The tendency for them to be purely defensive is probably the reason. I've yet to be convinced otherwise; if you think you can do it, good luck.
The RVI: Anyone familiar with my paradigm might want to pay attention to this section because it is a deviation from my previous preferences. While the RVI is still not my favorite answer to T or theory, I am less inclined to ignore it as I was in the past. As a general rule, I don't see procedurals as Reverse Voting Issue. However, in situations of particularly clear abuse in which a debater has been excluded out of the round in its entirety by a misuse of said procedurals, I can see the RVI as a good reason to vote. The other instance in which i might be persuaded by the RVI is in a criticism of your opponents epistemology in excluding your position. (ie, a K of theory or a K of T) Again, these arguments tend to not be my favorite, but I have been persuaded by them in the past.
Speaking Style: We all know what you're looking at this section for. Yes, speed is fine. Yes, I will yell clear. However, if I have to say clear more than once, it will effect your speaks. Also, please start slower and build up speed, I promise that the dramatic increase in clarity is worth it. Some other tips:
1- Enunciate your words. Its pretty hard to flow as your sentences begin to blend together into one homogeneous mass of undecipherable nothingness.
2- Number your arguments- Not only does it help with rebuttal efficiency, but it makes it easy for me to know when one argument starts and when another begins.
3- Slow down on taglines, authors and structural indicators- This keeps my flow nice and clean. A clean flow is a happy judge. And really your goal should be to keep me as happy as possible.
4- Make clear, warranted extensions. (emphasis on the emphasis on the word warranted)
Evidence: If you read a card and are asked about it in cross-x, you shouldn't have to examine it closely in order to provide the warrant. It annoys me to no end when I watch a debater searching for the warrants in a piece of evidence that they have never really read before. If you don't understand it, don't read it. Especially when it is in your constructive. There is no excuse for not knowing the arguments that you expect me to vote on.
Overly dense philosophy for the sake of intellectual masturbation: I see two major issues with philosophical debate in highschool LD rounds. Nearly every K round I have seen in a while has included one or both of these issues
1- Debaters do not understand their authors
2- Debaters do not know how to explain their authors to an audience that does not have a prior knowledge of the content.
Don't get me wrong, I was a K debater for a large part of my high school career. I love reading and discussing critical literature and arguments. I think that critical theory is a vital asset to our community and I will happily vote for these positions. What bothers me in many K rounds is when a debater has an unclear understanding of their author. If you are expecting me to vote on an author's theory, you should have read their works. What I do NOT want to see is a poorly constructed Backfile-Frankenstein's monster of a kritik that you have no understanding of. Do not think you are fooling anyone when you do this.
For those of you that understand concepts better when arranged mathematically, here goes.
Bad understanding of authors and the arguments that the are making = Bad extensions/bad explanations = Losing the round with low speaker points
It is that simple. Unfortunately, this problem is a common one, which is, in my opinion, why there aren't many successful K debaters on the circuit right now.
Conclusion- This will be updated and revised as my opinions change (as i'm sure they will). Remember, this list is not meant to be a guide to what arguments can/cannot be ran in front of me, but rather it should be used as an indicator of my preferences. I make a point to not reject arguments on face and attempt to fairly evaluate everything you have to say. If you have any specific questions regarding a position you are unsure about, or a question regarding my stylistic preferences (hint: I really don't have any), please don't hesitate to ask before the round begins, or to message me on Facebook. Either are acceptable.