Last changed on
Sat July 20, 2024 at 6:42 AM EDT
northview 25/northview ct
debatebtbc@gmail.com
Overview
Biggest Influences: Jerry Chen, Ayush Potdar, Matt Cekanor
Tech>>>>Truth in every instance. The only role of the judge is to vote for the team who did the better debating, not to arbitrarily intervene using predispositions. I.e. I will evaluate any arguments; wipeout, spark, fiat k, death good, aspec, etc. are all fair game.
"i don't care about death good, wipeout, etc. it's usually not that deep---debate's a game where we don't believe in our arguments. say whatever you want, just be prepared to defend it." - Michael Ross
"Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means." - Archan Sen.
Given the above---"When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate." - Matt Cekanor.
Update: Zero risk of case is pretty much impossible to win in front of me. It exists, but I'm very convinced by .000000001% risk of the case means I ought to vote aff.
Novices
"Avoid reading too many cards---the novice packet comes with a large set of evidence BUT most of these are not independently sufficient arguments that can be voted on. Avoid the tendency to read the "extend [insert]" block in the file and instead write out analytical extensions to what you have already read in previous speeches.
Example: If you read a 1AC with a warming impact, then subsequent speeches should NOT read another warming card but instead say "Extend [insert] 1AC evidence---it says that warming is exclusively anthropogenic with [insert] timeframe of [insert] years that comes before [insert neg impacts] and outweighs."
Other things that boost speaker points and get you closer to the win:
- Being well read on your arguments---this means not having to look at your cards during 1AC cx (because you should already know it)
- Putting in a clear effort---if I notice you're not trying it'll be hard for me to vote for you.
- Signposting and being clear---say when you're moving from one offcase to another."
- Aryan Bhattacharya
Topicality
competing interps good. evidence comparison. case lists.
ground > limits in my op.
CPs
Judgekick unless the aff tells me why I shouldn't.
I'm decent at competition. textual + func, func only etc. i can go either way given better debating. my personal opinion (which will have no impact on the debate) is that cps only need to compete functionally.
Read solvency advocates in the 1NC for the most part. 20 plank Adv CPs with no solvency advocates are hella abusive, but I probably like it given neg terrorism is cool. But the 1AR also prolly gets new answers.
"Answer the net benefit or lose! You do not want to hand the neg a try or die push, especially because your deficits likely will not outweigh 100% risk of a conceded net benefit." - Jerry Chen
DAs
Sure. Impact calc and case defense. Need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact throughout the debate. Tell that story in the 2NR.
DA turns the case is underrated.
Kritiks
i run ks on the aff and neg 90% of debates. That being said, if your theory of power is pomo, I'll definitely vote on it but I think these are stupid.
Good links please.
"Framework interps should moot the plan. Going for the alternative coupled with links to the plan's material implications means you will lose to the perm double bind." - Jerry Chen
Framework: I will not create my own "middle ground" interp. I will start evaluating the debate from framework.
K-Affs
read whatever. Have a topic link if you want. topic link is perceptually better but like it really doesnt matter that much.
burden of rejoinder still exists. i.e. it is still a debate.
impact turns > c/i. most counterinterps are hella arbitrary and self serving, so unless you have something more nuanced than "topical affs plus us" the ci is probably ass.
T-USFG
fairness >>> everything else. fairness paradox is objectively true---but, as with everything else, it can be out-debated.
Do ballot instruction.
i want to err neg on topicality given how cheaty k affs are getting---but i will certainly evaluate it technically.
Other
Condo is good. Go for it if you want and I will evaluate it objectively, but I find "no condo" to be unpersuasive.
Tag team cross is fine.
Card Doc? Probably not, maybe in a policy round---but, if you sneak extra cards not read into the card doc, speaks nuked and auto-dropped. Teams try to get away with this way too often.
Inserting evidence is fine and good.
Sliding Scales (bored)
Tech-X----------------------------Truth
Condo-----X----------------------No Condo
Theory-------------------------X--Competition
Fairness----X----------------------Clash
Policy Affs----------X-------------Planless Affs
Insert Rehighlights-X---------------Don't
Positional Competition-----------------X-This is not an argument