Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.
Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!
General:
- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on
- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing
- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.
This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this
- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!
- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.
- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.
More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."
- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)
- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.
Back half specifics:
- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted
- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus
- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary
- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks
Speaks:
- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.
- avg is 28
- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior
Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.