Last changed on
Wed June 19, 2024 at 7:58 AM EDT
hey, i'm harrison (he/him), and i debated for 3 years at Walt Whitman High School in PF.
*THIS WAS MADE WITH HIGH SCHOOL PF IN MIND; IF ANYTHING DOESN’T MAKE SENSE OR ISN’T TYPICAL MIDDLE SCHOOL PROCEDURE, ASK ME BEFORE ROUND*
add me to the chain: hjwalley2006@gmail.com
i prefer a google doc w/ rhetoric and cards, but you can also send a PDF. if any of this isn't accessible for you, it's 100% fine if you don't send. maybe disclose on the wiki if you're not able to send evidence during round
*seeing as there's no place on OpenCaseList to disclose for middle school, middle schoolers do NOT have to disclose*
**NATS NOTE: i'm apparently not allowed to disclose, but don't let that stop you from asking for feedback after the round; i'm not gonna talk much about general speaking skills or anything, but i'm always happy to talk strategy**
ask me about anything confusing in the paradigm if you have questions
TLDR:
this is probably the most standard tech paradigm you'll ever read; literally debate like you're doing any other tech round and it'll be good
tech>truth, run whatever you want as long as it's not exclusionary
defense isn't sticky
PLEASE STRIKE ME IF YOU DON'T READ CUT CARDS
i guess you can do new weighing in 1st final; definitely nothing new in 2nd (i’d much prefer solid weighing in first summary)
extend at least uniqueness, link, and impact
comparative weighing please
prob not the best person for prog; i can maybe evaluate theory, but k's are probably a no-go (april 2024 update: i can evaluate really well implicated, fairly stock k’s, but if you get screwed bc i was never a prog debater, please don’t blame me)
let me know if i can make your experience better; if both teams agree that my paradigm sucks, you can ask me to change it for the round
General Debate Stuff:
i think that judge intervention is really bad for debate. don't make me intervene; do comparative weighing, extend your args, leave defense on your opponent's case. you, your speaks, and i will all be happier if you do that
if it's not on the flow, i'm not voting on it
collapse - it makes the round really messy when someone goes for 4 blippy arguments
signpost - please help me know where i should flow...
Evidence:
i won't call for cards unless someone explicitly tells me to
if you send cards, i might look because i'm interested, but i won't intervene on bad evidence. the other team has to explicitly tell me that it's fabricated to the point i can't evaluate it, or just run an IVI or do an ev challenge
if you take like 2+ minutes to pull up a card, i'll probably tank your speaks and will take it as an analytic
Speeches:
constructive:
i'm probably not the best judge for speed. if i can't understand you, i'll say "clear" three times before i just stop flowing. not gonna flow off of a doc, so just make sure that you're actually speaking in a way that i can understand
2nd constructive can respond to 1st if they want. just make sure to at least say, "onto their case" or something to just let me know (but like probably just don’t; i don’t see many scenarios where it’s actually strategic)
rebuttal:
if you're able to, send any cards (or a speech doc) you're reading for rebuttal before your speech
i think it's smart to weigh in rebuttal, but not necessary obviously
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline
strategic collapses in 2nd will result in a happy judge and happy speaks
summary:
extend
if the other team does a really bad extension, call it out and tell me why i can't vote for them (if there's no extension at all, i won't vote on it)
at least give me uniqueness, link, and impact; internal links and warrants are nice, but at least have that
definitely weigh (i'm of the opinion that probability weighing is usually bad and just new defense, but i guess it's a weighing mechanism, so utilize it)
final:
needs to mirror summary
extend, again
if your opponents are using different weighing mechanisms than you, it's probably strategic to tell me which mechanism to prefer (metaweigh, anyone?)
if your partner didn't weigh in 1st summary, 1st final can do new weighing (no new prereqs or link-ins; that's just abusive)
no new implications or args from 2nd final; i won't flow them
cross:
i'll listen, definitely won't flow it
if there's something important, bring it up in the next speech
Prog:
theory:
i guess i understand theory. if you have to know, i think paraphrasing is really bad, disclosure is probably good. i default text over spirit, RVI's, and Competing Interps (reasonability for TW theory). all of that can change if you just... give me warrants for why it should
read the shell the speech directly after the abuse happened. out-of-round abuses need to be in constructive
also, i want shell>substance layering at the very least in summary and final; if you're reading a shell in constructive, it's probably smart to do it in rebuttal
extend the shell every speech after it's read
don't read friv on novices; that's just dumb
april 2024 update:
middle schoolers can read theory that’s fine (still steer clear of friv)
it’s been a while since i’ve even thought about theory, but i’ll catch up on it before the tournament
k's:
i don't know too much about non-T k's, but i kinda get the gist of topical stuff. if you HAVE to read a k, just implicate it well and tell me why you win off of it
april 2024 update:
it's been a while since i've thought about k's too... if you have to read one, just don't spread it 300 wpm or more
tricks:
no, except for roko's. i like roko's (don't read tricks please)
i like what other people have said about tricks - if someone reads tricks on you, saying “tricks are for kids” is adequate and terminal defense
framework:
sure. framework should be extended in every speech after it's read. 2nd constructive should respond to framework in 1st
speaks:
speaks will probably be good
i'll start at 28.5, and go up or down from there depending on strategy
not gonna dock speaks bc of the way you dress, how you talk (unless you're spreading and you're incoherent), etc
L25 if you do something exclusionary
few ways to up your speaks:
a. read a funny impact turn
b. be nice
c. disclose on the wiki (ask me before round if you don't know how - i won't dock your speaks if you don't disclose) +0.5 speaks if you do
d. do smart prereq stuff
e. actually engage in substantive clash in a cool and strategic way
other stuff:
i'll disclose if i'm allowed to; ask me privately to disclose speaks if you want
postround if you want, but be nice about it
be funny if you want, but there's a line between being funny and being a jerk