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

John Masterson — Fourth-Year Debater for Woodward

25jmasterson@woodward.edu

IPR Topic Knowledge: Attended 7 week Mich Camp

Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman are my greatest influences in debate, I will probably agree with most things they agree on, here are their paradigms
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

General

Clarity, Clash with Opponents, and Respecting the Opponent should be essential

Tech > Truth. This reaches an extent but will vote on dropped arguments if I'm given a reason why to. Truthful arguments are easier to prove.

Don't clip cards

Trick debating < Clash (However depending on the arg I will vote for it but may be more lenient towards the other team) well researched args are best

I respect good research and high-quality cards. My favorite debates to judge are well-prepped and explained specific strategies to an aff or a team that can line by line and number their arguments (Take this opinion with a grain of salt)

I’d say I’m more neg leaning on theory in general and think most theory is resolved by rejecting the argument (except Condo) but I could be convinced otherwise. I’m pretty persuaded by comparing to past topics (I would prob get references to water and NATO best but references to prior topics may require simplicity or more explanation) or justifications under interps. I think under the IP topic, neg ground might not be as terrible as most 2n’s have described it, personally almost no aff has a strong defense of why their area of IP is the best or only method or resolving whatever impact.

Feel free to ask any questions pre-round

Tanvi Pamulapati

3rd year debater, Woodward Academy

I want to be on the email chain - 25tpamulapati@woodward.edu

Good things you should do :

1. Speak clearly, prioritize clarity over speed, although both are essential.
2. Do line by line and FLOW, it's just good debating.
3. Be nice and fair throughout the round, debate is all one community (no clipping, lying about cards you read, nothing cheaty)
4. Do your best in CX to ask in depth questions, not just filler, and understand the line between confident and rude
5. Clash is good, both sides should have a clear story by the rebuttal speeches.

I'm happy to answer any questions, have fun while you debate!!

Woodward class of 2026

Yes email chain -- lanedebates@gmail.com

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 by doing line-by-line. Make sure to speak clearly. Go Debate!

+0.1 speaks for showing flows after the round

Westminster '27, she/her, 1A/2N in my 3rd year

add me to the email chain: Isminivasilogloudebate@gmail.com, wildcatdebatedocs@gmail.com

Tech>truth.

Be respectful.