Last changed on
Tue October 15, 2024 at 6:35 PM CDT
Quinn Largent pronouns: They/Them
Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present
Email: largentquinn@gmail.com
Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 10/15/24)
Trad LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below
TLDR: Tech > Truth. I'll adapt to you.
post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while I reserve the right to make one and I am glad to answer any questions you have. (seriously if you think I just dropped the ball lmk)
All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you.
Args that I will not vote for becuase i beleive they are morally wrong and don't deserve a spot in debate: any ist and phobic good arg OBVI, Israel good, cops good, Inequality good, any theory relating to ones appearance or clothing. (updating as I see more i wont punish you if its not on this list but will add)
I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not. so I will vote on out-of-round issues as long as there is proof because I can't vote on just he said she said scenario.
Specifics for adapting in the round:
----- Logistics/Presentation -----
Call me whatever I don’t care.
Put me on the email chain or whatever ur using.
I will also auto-vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. I have a 1 strike policy if it's an honest mistake and the other team doesn't notice. but they can run theory at any mistake
Speed is fine go as fast as you want ill clear u if I need to --- I do flow on paper tho Im stubborn like that so pen time is cool this means not having 70000 different anayltics in 2 second I can't flow that fast.
----- Plan AFFs -----
just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.
I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues)
vagueness Is a real arg. plan texts shouldn't just be the res
By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff.
For soft left affs --- you should have a small adv that everyone knows is true and a bad thing and then a massive framing page it will make your life 10 times easier
LD affs: if you defend res --- you better have fire link debate or should focus on I/L stuff imo --- less generic your advs don't really change how easy it is to get a link just makes case debate outside the impact level harder --- if you read Plan text everything above applies.
----- K AFFs -----
K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw.--- i think a lot of aff and neg teams don't do enough turns case analysis against both sides. doing that will make my ballot a lot less frustrating.
how negs should go for FW: it should have impacts based on actions of the round exaberated by what the specific style of the aff or lit basis of the aff does to debate or the round. Good TVA is sick. if identity related explain how being untopical affects that said identity. more spec FW is the more likley i might like voting on it. Generic FW is bad and wont win you the round.
KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method.
explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.
Teams should be doing very heavy method explanation in front of me. presumption ballots look really good when the aff can't actually defend the method in cross or can't give a consistent explanation. explain what ur method looks like out of round in round or wherever ur method would take place.
Neg teams reads counterplans and DAs there normally are pretty good against some k affs. and often underutilized especially in LD.
LD K affs: a lot of y'all affirm the resolution through K lit this is fire --- I think these affs should have a top level theory that answers everything DAs/CPs etc. if you affirm the res then critique the state if they are the actors in the res you might be screwed because you will definitely link back 95% of the time. Negs against this shouldn't change their off Strats if they affirm the res they will link so go for it. I do think K v K is a really underrated option against these affs because they still affirm the res their k lit prolly links back. Link back args are super underused and underrated.
----- T -----
EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY
I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently (T – Article V against most NATO AFFs). (T - Prexisting/T - Redistrubutiuon against all Fiscal redistrubution Affs)
You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep.
case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way is always appreciated
i default to competing interps. but like I've said many times if u win reasonability you win it just have a warrant.
----- CPs -----
Condo: I'll vote if u win it. this does not mean I have a preference for less or more advocacys run none run 30 I do not care. win the debate is all that matters
Neg: have a net benefit. with good explanation on how you are mutually exclusive --- either perm links to da or just how the CP and aff can't work together.
Don't just shoot perms at me IE don't just go perm do both. say perm do both --- (insert explanation on how this works)
Judge kick: if you want me to say it and have a warrant if you don't want it say why its bad and have a warrant
theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bad. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team just make warrants. Ive ran and won on delay and consult cps. I've also won on theory for why these are bad.
ADV cps: if you can kick planks condo is supercharged cause it allows for how many combinations of planks you can have.
----- DAs -----
NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.
Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly Link to us paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.
There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.
------ Ks -----
If you are not black don't run afropessism. its auto loss with as low as speaks I can give. I as a white person when I have literally only been told doing that is a bad thing cannot just ignore that. (added cause someone tried to do this in front of me)
More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.
I am decently well versed in K literature. this shouldn't shift how you debate in front of me just cause I know what you are trying to say doesnt mean you are saying it.
Link: after doing K debate for a while good K teams will devolpe more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independent reject teams/links because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K
Impact: should be explained in how it implicates the aff.
ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.
You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA
If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.
K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it. FW can be used to get links to the K
LD paradigm
------ Prog LD -----
Look at policy stuff.
Tricks: tech > truth when I began debate I thought these were bad and hated them. now i realize teams should just win the debate against them on 1 of two levels.
Theory: they shouldn't be in debate and why
Debate them: why the theory is untrue bad etc.
------ Trad LD -----
i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(
Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.
PFD paradigm
just debate ill flow and ill vote on offense. i don't really see how this is much different then policy minus a few things. Tech>truth ill vote on anything
Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i wont put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.
Congress paradigm
I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it
how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.
Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i wont put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.
Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)
IE paradigm
If I'm judging you in IE I'm sorry
------ Extemp -----
I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.
Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts.
tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it.
------ Prose/Poetry -----
GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators and me to prepare myself
Once again as a prewarning sorry.
This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.
use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool
------ DI-----
GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself
Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.
once again sorry.
characters should all be able to be seen apart.
check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.
have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece
------ HI-----
Once again sorry
Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3 (4 if we count pity laugh) this doesnt mean I dont find it funny I just dont audibly laugh often,
i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it. THE MOST CRINGE PIECES CAN BE FUNNY IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING.
like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.
object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)
how understanding of your story is great still.
having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.
OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.
------ POI-----
GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself
Once again sorry
What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.
3. a fluid story.
if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.
Object permance is great (check di for example)
TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.
------ INFO-----
GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself
Once again sorry
props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.
i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.
Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.
------ OO-----
GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself
Once again sorry
judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.
i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.
