Katy ISD Novice Night 5
2024 — Katy, TX/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI competed in PF at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit for four years. I also dabbled a bit in LD and CX.
TL;DR: I am fine with any strategy. Speed is fine, but be clear. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. The best arguments are both strategic from a technical perspective and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Arguments that are patently untrue or overly esoteric require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. Judge instruction and ballot directive language are paramount.
Please add davidlutx@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear.
Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I appreciate debaters who utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if done properly.
As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge. Extending the warrants and context presented in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. I will scrutinize evidence after the round if its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-formatted evidence. I also appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that.
I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out.
I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. You cannot say death or patriarchy is good.
I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are enjoyable to judge. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. Similarly, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably require intervention. In a similar vein, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach.
I am fine for debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to them. Frivolous theory is frivolous. Harder presses on reasonability and RANT can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense. I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'.
I am familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding capitalism, biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), security, international relations, settler colonialism, disability pessimism (Mollow), orientalism, psychoanalysis, transhumanism, fiat, and death. You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my RFD. In general, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal backfile-botting.
Debaters should demonstrate a committed understanding of core literature, historical examples, and actor analysis. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique, instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Regardless, you should be reading from cut cards and disclosing when reading these arguments.
That being said, the best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize such criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Kritiks that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive value and offense. I believe critiques are a great tool to foster engagement in an honest analysis of this activity in relation to both its competitive nature and many pedagogical termini. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long.
I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives uses the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should probably be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly answers the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear statement otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on your willingness to defend said alternative, the literature being cited, and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof).
Finally, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, engage in a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments but find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacies that are predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You should save your 'tricks' - single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable - for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph).
Speaker points are a combination of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency.
For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.