Thaddeus Cross- 4th year debater at Woodward Academy

I want to be on the email chain: thadcross25@gmail.com

Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Top 3 things about debate:

1. Be nice to people! - you can be persuasive and nice, there is no reason to be rude

2. Speak clearly! - if I can't flow what you're saying, there is no point in saying it

3. Clash! - if your arguments don't interact with the other team's and apply to the debate, they're bad arguments

My thoughts on arguments and performance:

Cross-Ex: do your own cross-ex, you should know what you are saying, tag teaming is fine, but lowers speaks

Disadvantages: I like good turns case arguments and timeframe comparison for impact calculus.

Counterplans: I like well thought out counterplans with solvency advocates, I dislike bad process CPs that don't have a topic area specific solvency advocate.

Conditionality: in a vacuum I think conditionality is good... my real gripe is with counterplans and kritiks that are not specific to the affirmative and do not have topic specific evidence... that being said, conditionality is a vehicle for the affirmative side to punish the negative for reading the poor quality arguments mentioned above, so my threshold for voting on conditionality is lower when the negative reads poor quality conditional advocacies (I am also very willing to vote on theory to reject CPs without topic specific evidence)... in the event that the negative reads high quality conditional advocacies, I am neutral on voting on conditionality, and good debating is necessary to sway me (in all honesty, I probably lean negative in this scenario, but good debating from both sides is still necessary to persuade me)

Impact Turns: I will not vote for non-unique impact turns, there needs to be a compelling argument why the affirmative is worse than the status quo. I think negative teams win too often on impact turns that are not unique.

Kritiks on the negative: prove to me why the aff is worse than the status quo and how the alternative resolves the links of the kritik. I lean aff on framework (weighing the aff is definitely best for education and clash), but that can be changed with good debating.

Kritiks on the affirmative: Nobody in the first year division should be reading a critical affirmative. You are not good enough to read one as a first year. It is not educational as first years are still learning the fundamentals of debate (learn the rules before you break them). Sadly, I believe in clash and cannot vote down first years immediately for reading a critical affirmative, but the threshold to vote negative on Topicality is very low. Please be topical so that everyone in the round can learn and become better debaters in order to generate the skills necessary to effectively debate a critical affirmative.

Pet Peeves (if you want good speaks, this is the "don't do it list"):

- "tag team" CX: it makes it feel like you don't know what you are doing

- taking forever to send out/start speeches: teams that move the round along efficiently will be rewarded with good speaks

-stealing prep: everything done in a debate should be on the clock, anyone at any age can understand this

- not understanding your arguments: I think anyone at any level can and should put in the time to learn about the arguments they are making to the point where they can effectively explain the argument in CX without reading directly from your cards

-avoiding clash: examples include... reading multiple bad arguments to skew your opponents; reading bad theory arguments; reading bad process counterplans; avoiding disclosure; avoiding commitments in CX; trying to confuse your opponents; reading bad evidence

-teams not flowing: poor flowing is obvious, and will result in lower speaks

Anna Jane Harben - Third Year Debater for Woodward (AJ is also fine)

Pronouns - She/her

Please put me on the email chain 25aharben@woodward.edu

Main things to remember about debate:

1. Be nice — there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive
2. Argument clash — it's important that your arguments interact with other arguments in the debate and that you support your claims with warrants
3. Line by line is essential — it makes it much easier to follow the debate when you have clear line by line
4. Be clear — speaking fast is great until no one can understand you. If you're not clear its better to slow down
5. Please ask me questions that's the only way to learn!

Use CX time to your advantage. It's extra speech time for you and a place to set up your strategy for the rest of the debate

Rishi Jain

Put me on the chain : 27rjain@woodward.edu

2nd Year Policy Debater for Woodward Academy — Class of 2027

Top Level:

Online debates if my camera is off I’m not there. Confirm I’m there before starting. Be a bit clearer than usual.

Tech over truth. I believe debate is a game and we're all here to win, though that belief can be changed through some good debating, as can all of my biases. I'll vote on anything (but the '-isms' at the end probably means I'll vote against it, just don’t be any of the ‘-isms’ and I’ll be able to vote on it if you win it.)

You can defend extremist positions but you must be able to technically defend it from everything, including other extremist positions. Now, you might have someone ask for the round to end because of what you're reading, in which case I'll end the round and decide based on what I can figure out. I'll intervene if:

1 — the '-isms'.

2 — someone is incapable of continuing the round, whether it be physically or mentally. No, this does not mean you should make up a psychic violence claim to try to get them voted down on.

3 — forced by tab, or laws, or really anything else.

Judge instruction == appreciated.

I'm best for judging policy arguments.

Chances are I'll read your evidence. No card doc needed as long as you make it clear what evidence you're citing (alternatively, saying you're on the uniqueness debate, then saying '1NC evidence says [x]' also works, because I know its 1NC uniqueness). That also means you should have good evidence, or at the very least highlight it well.

CP's:

Love them. Running that insanely massive advantage counterplan is pretty cool as well once you read through all the cards and understand it. Might want to explain those decently well in the final rebuttals though. Judgekick if verbally told to, but that can be disputed easily. I don't judgekick by default — you must say it. Process CPs I don't completely like, but I'm 100% able to vote for them, I just think that they can't win against theory arguments and well-crafted perms.

No, it is not game over if you drop a CP plank. I like line-by-lining the planks of course, but those generic "only the aff can solve x" blocks might work out for you if the neg doesn't answer it correctly. Dropping a plank isn't me insta-voting neg.

CPs should be made to not lose to permutations easily. Don't read one that does.

I default to normal permutation theory: a legitimate permutation is one that includes all of the plan and part or all of the counterplan.

Of course, severance and intrinsicness need to be impacted out. Can't just say it’s severance and then move on. You'd be kinda in a weird place if they extend it and say that the internal link to severance perms being bad wasn't said, so there isn't a reason it's bad.

please give a solvency advocate. I’ll be more lenient on all arguments against the CP both real and theoretical if no solvency advocate supports it.

K's (both aff and neg):

(neg) K's are fine, but make sure you explain it to me. I'm not completely well-versed in K's. I’m good with understanding Framework arguments usually. Please make the links easy to understand. Similarly, K-AFFs are fine with me. I love a good K debate. Don't hyper-speed through your framework blocks, or really anything — being clear and concise is great. Also, define words. Please don't expect me to know some random word that the K makes up with a really vague definition. They're kinda interesting when well debated and explained! I’ve gotten better at them recently. If your framework doesn’t moot the aff, get a better framework please because it’s hard to evaluate the aff impacts v. Aff Reps/Epistemology. No framework read = default to evaluating the plan vs. alt and I’ll intervene when necessary if I don’t find any path forward to a decision given by either side. K tricks don’t really work for me without a really good top-level explanation, because most of the time I’m too dumb to understand them.

I tend to think of the K team as just spreading through blocks with incoherent buzzwords reading Ks where framework is just a bunch of repetitive, wrong, and bad garbage. Don’t be that team. There’s a reason I prefer policy arguments more: they actually make way more sense (though everything typically makes 0 sense in debate).

TLDR, default ROB = evaluate plan vs. the alt, default ROJ = determine winner of the debate. explain to me because I'm dumb with high-theory. Cap, Racial Cap, SetCol, Psycho, and Death Ks are the Ks I'm familiar with. I'm slightly familiar with Anti-Blackness and Afropessimism, but not 100%, more like 35.29%.

oh yeah and a fancy poem isn't a kritik. read a card. performance is only critical if you have evidence and you tell me it is.

(aff) K affs == cool. be clear because I know analytics won't be sent out. Saying a bunch of buzzwords and debate jargon isn't an argument, and if it's explained that way in the 1/2AR then idek what your argument is and I'll probably vote neg.

It is my opinion that novices shouldn't be reading a K Aff.

I personally think that W/M and a C/I on T is a terrible strategy compared to impact turning T. The aff has a reason why debating the rez is bad, now go figure out a way to apply it to T (even though, most T impact turns are wrong truth-level)

I think K v. K Affs is cool, so long as it doesn't become confusing. I think performance is able to be evaluated, but you gotta tell me that, and also I think that your performance can just be terrible being a reason I shouldn't evaluate it.

(general) Please utilize CX against the K. I think it's interesting when a K team explains their argument, but they should remember: buzzwords/fancy complex words that aren't things a typical high schooler would know about/understand are always bad. They get lower speaks from me too. AKA, anything ending with "-ology" should be explained, and anything with like over... idk 3 syllables? Just use your judgement.

DA's (aff and neg):

Always great. Maybe it would be fun to just bombard somebody with like 4-5 DAs, but I wouldn’t know. I especially love the all DA 1NR — I think a good 2AC makes it pretty time-pressured which gets all the good arguments and cards read on a position.

Remember the entire DA when answering it. I like to see good offense and smart arguments on all places of the DA. If somebody reads a huge 10-card uniqueness wall in the 2NC for a DA, why bother with the uniqueness debate when you could do a UQ o/ws the link?

Yes, yes, you can win 100% risk of defense. You can zero the DA, but "zero is a small number." I'm not offense-defense.

When going for offense, please do in-depth clash.

Also, I love these nice turns case people are always making! Do them analytically. If the 1AR drops them, make it the ballot! Turns-case is lovely.

UQ CPs need to be well-crafted and have a reason that they can't be permed. Most lose to PDB. A contrived reason that they can't be permed is kinda stupid though.

Politics DAs == Love them. Elections and PC tradeoff is what I'm familiar with most.

In general, I think that on most DAs the 2AC should have both analytics and cards. Preferably keep the analytics to truth-level claims about how illogical the DA is, and cards go to technical claims that get debated. Analytics are a strong tool for 2As to use against a DA, but making them reinforce technical claims (your cards) with truthful facts means I'll probably lean more aff than neg because the DA doesn't make sense according to those truth-based claims + whatever tech thing you're winning

This might be controversial but I think the best 2ACs on a DA should also keep their best argument at the top. Whatever you think the 2AR should be, let me know it by having it be the first thing written/typed. Followed by the second argument, etc.

I know some people like to organize it by UQ, L, I/L, ! but that can happen in the later speeches — I think starting with your best argument communicates something about it because it's good enough to go to the very top of a block.

Impact Turns:
Love them!! Especially the ludicrous ones. Not much to say. They're a really underused and OP strategy (well, it's only super good if there's good evidence. That's the basis of all argumentation — evidence)

Imo, unethical impact turns aren't a voting issue. Tech over truth means what it means. I'll vote on death good, spark, etc.

kicking case and going for an impact turn is kinda underutilized.

Ts/Theory:

No preferences for Ts. I like running them, but unless the aff is like egregiously untopical or they just drop T, I think it's hard to win. I don't have any random prefs like reasonability first or whatever. Just tell me in the 2NR/2AR why your model of debate is good and why their model is bad. This goes for all theory: All theory is is just a debate about models. Why is your model good? Why is their model bad?

T's are good. Convince me. It’s especially interesting when the AFF is definitely 100% topical but you still argue T. Theory arguments are fine, but I would prefer you don't go all in on theory if you still have some other chances of winning elsewhere in the debate. It takes time to understand and, even though the impacts are evaluated first, I would prefer theory as an end-of-the-debate-all-in-nothing-to-lose sort of thing. No, this doesn't mean I err to reasonability, it just means that if I think you could've gone for something else, or had you been winning somewhere else, why would you take the time and extend that theory? I get it if they drop it, but just going for theory for giggles isn't going to get some cool speaker points in lieu for that nice in-depth econ DA debate you could've had rather than the boring condo debate.

Of course, if you're losing, I guess theory is your savior. Just don't forget theory crossapplications.

Save T for the 2NC not the 1NR. It isn't that much of a deal if you run the same old T an aff has seen 100 times against it and all the 1A has to do is pull out some blocks and that's it. At least in the 2NC they think there's something important going on.

General:

Open CX/'Tag-Team' CX is allowed. Don't bulldoze your partner. You're both supposed to know your arguments.

Don't cheat. I always prefer 0 downtime in debates, so do you really need that marked doc? If I can't understand your argument, you should either go for another one or consider a different argument. I won't vote on it if I can't understand it. If you say it, I evaluate it, and I try my best not to do work for you. Slow down on analytics please I'm decent at flowing but I'm not the godly listener-hyper-typer flower. Be clear please!

Sometimes I flow on paper. Sometimes I don't. That shouldn't affect how you give your speech. Give me pen time and time to switch between flows, and clarity please. Justify new arguments if they’re in the 1AR/2NR/2AR. New 2AR arguments aren’t evaluated (the ones that are really new and unjustified, also, new warrants count this way too). Time yourself. I will time you as well.Use Microsoft Word & Verbatim please for sending docs. At the very least, use word and I’ll convert to verbatim. Unformatted docs are not appreciated, and if you don’t send out some cards, chances are I won’t read them. I won't dock speaks if you don't use word + verbatim, I'd just prefer it this way.

I'm fine with fast spreading, but make sure you are clear when you do it. If I can't understand you, I won't count the argument; please make an overview, but don't have a 5 minute long overview. Tech > True unless both sides are over on tech, then I evaluate the truthfulness of the argument. Explain K's completely, don't expect me to know huge vocabulary words (like seriously, what is floccinaucinihilipilification?). I flow and I use speech docs. If you're going to remove analytics from speech docs, slow down on them.

Comprehensive case defense > running as many off-case as possible and practically dropping both advantages

(and extend that case defense too! I love an in-depth case debates! Affirmatives should be ready for in-depth case defense, not just count on too many off-case and low case defense. The way some affs are crafted is just horrifying to me.)

Double DA block == overpowered.

Speaker Points:

Mainly based off of CX and Rebuttals (unless something sticks out to me during the constructives [including 1NR, yes the block is a constructive]). Immediate loss + 0 speaks if any racism, sexism, or any lgbtqphobic things occur (+ cheating). Basically, don’t be offensive and I won’t give you low speaks. Don't do the '-ism's

Just do your best and you'll do well!

Woodward class of 2026

Yes email chain -- 26ltharp@woodward.edu

I am willing to evaluate most arguments and believe in tech > truth. The most important thing to me is clash, so make sure to do that as well as line-by-line. Also, make sure to speak clearly. Go Debate!

+0.2 speaks for showing flows after the round

Most of my argument preferences shouldn't effect how you debate, but here they are:
DAs

Love them! Both DA+CP and just DA 2NRs are great. Make sure to do turns case and impact calculus to frame my ballot. Good turns case/calc wins debates, so do it!

CP

I like advantage CPs, but think that a lot of process CPs are very cheaty. I err aff on most process CP theory, but neg on most other CP theory. However, I find it more convincing to go for competition against process CPs.

Condo

On a truth level I think excessive condo(4+) creates really unfair and uneducational debates. However, I think it can also be hard to convincingly win condo bad on the aff. I think competing interps w/ 2 condo vs 3 condo and stuff like that is really silly.

Ks

I like aff-specific Ks that are well-explained and well-linked out. However, I find generic Ks that can apply to any aff and any topic very unconvincing. Using quotes from the affirmative and explaining those really help solidify the link for the negative. On framework, on a truth level the best FW is probably letting the aff weigh case and letting the neg weigh the K. However, good debating will change how I evaluate framework. For the affirmative, if the negative forwards an unfair framework interp and spends 5 mins on it, don't be afraid to try to beat it.

K-Affs

I lean heavily negative on topicality against K-affs and find clash to be the most convincing impact against these affs.

T

T is fun! Make sure to do impact calculus with the theory impacts. However, I likely won't find T very convincing against very common affs.