Last changed on
Wed January 31, 2024 at 5:30 AM PDT
Put me on the email chain: boigalaxy8@gmail.com
TLDR: Framing and framework are good, use them to your advantage. I don't love theory, I won't vote on it unless it's highly contested usually, never drop theory, I like Ts, they're important overall, I love Counterplans and Ks - I will get confused if you do some extremely obscure K, DA's are just pretty much standard, Case is the Aff's offense, Off case is the Neg's offense, always do weighing, always looked for dropped arguments, always extend dropped arguments, yeah. I also flow everything to the best of my ability, I especially will flow arguments that are dropped and extended.
I vote GENERALLY more based on Tech > Truth.
Hello, I’m technically a 4 year debater, however I’ve mostly been doing debate seriously for only 2 and a half years, with that said I’ve been to many tournaments and have been to different camps and everything, so yea. Anyways, I used to do policy, I’ve switched to LD because of partner problems, and so you’ll see things in my paradigm that are a little Policy sided. <- last year, I have been pretty inactive in terms of participating in tournaments as a judge or debater, but I've still been looking at the new topics and different new cases that come along with them, so don't worry about me not knowing the topic at hand.
This part is mainly for newer people
Off-Case/Neg
T/Theory:I use to not like Ts and Theory much, and while that has remained largely true for Theory, I've turned a different leaf for Ts as I think they provide important ground debates for any given topic. If contested, Ts and Theories can be the most dangerous arguments in any given debate, as they are generally trying to contest whether the debate is fair or has any general benefit. This means that I can be forced to vote on T and Theory if it's extended by one team and unaddressed by another. I won't really vote on it however, if it just gets conceded by both teams without mention, because if both teams just drop it, then I can only assume that it's conceded on both sides.
CPs: Counterplans are great, there's not much else to say here. They are extremely diverse and can often times be extremely creative for both sides. There are also a lot of different tricky branches of counterplans that either side must address, which overall makes them very fun.
Ks:Ks are interesting, I feel like a lot teams are complete K teams or completely non-K teams, it's pretty interesting either way and I always enjoy listening to Ks. I dislike Ks when it's used in a very bad way, e.g. using it against a person who is new to debate, and this becomes even worse when the person presenting the K doesn't even know what they're talking about. I also can get confused by some very obscure Ks as I think most people probably can, and if you read that in the presence of me, I apologize but I will try my best to understand them. Otherwise, I understand K affs, K negs, and you can feel free to use Ks however you'd like.
DAs: I honestly don't even know what to say here lol, DAs are simple and an important and integral part of the Neg's off case, and rarely does a debate go without some sort of DA. The only reminder I have is to do impact calc against Aff.
Aff/Case
Obviously, case is the most important part of the Aff, it's your bread and butter and it's your main source of offense. There's not really much else to say here, read your adv and plan, and do framing + weighing, if you do everything good and the Neg isn't sufficiently answering your case, you should win the debate.
Theory: For theory, basically the same as Neg, it’s basically extra offence + win con for you.
