Yes email chain - Istealprep@gmail.com
Constrains: Mill Valley, Shark, Westwood, and Wichita East
I debate for Wichita State and used to do debate at JCCC.
Tech > Truth, but truth obviously informs which arguments are better
Misc:
Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. Making arguments about why you should receive a 30 is likely to make me lower your speaks.
+.02 speaks to both partners if you can prove to me you open sourced all the cards you read in the debate before I turn in my ballot.
Only one speaker is allowed to make arguments during a speech. I'm not flowing what you prompt your partner during their speech unless they repeat it to me. The same goes for performance debate. If the 2A gives a performance during the 1AC or the 2N gives a performance during the 1NC im not flowing it. If your performance requires a certain partner give the performance than they should be the first speaker.
K's on the aff:
Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.
My bar for presumption seems to be lower in these debates than most. "vote aff because it's a good idea" is not a warrant for the ballot in so far as you have conceded that we are not playing a game where we pretend to be the USFG. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of your aff should come early and be contextualized well.
method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. you should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text. Otherwise it seems nearly impossible for me to vote against the perm in 99% of these debates.
K's on the neg:
I tend to default and lean towards the aff getting to weigh the consequences of plan enactment. I am agnostic for the neg getting links to reps, but I am generally of the belief that those must outweigh the affirmative.
Winning against extinction outweighs without a turns case argument is usually an uphill battle, especially if you aren't doing the necessary case debate to minimize the risk of the aff. Not saying it can't be done, but I am inclined to not allow the human race to go extinct even if you are winning a large risk of your link.
Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech. If you are not going to send analytics and read straight down for your K 2NC do NOT read full speed.
T:
Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important for me. I understand that interp quality tends to suck on both sides regardless of the topic so you should use this to your advantage on both sides.
I tend to default to competing interps over reasonability. Mostly because the alternative for how to decide debates and what constitutes "good enough" is never really contextualized by affirmatives.
Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.
CP:
Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. That being said I am inclined to believe that the negative should not get to compete off of "certainty" or "immediacy".
Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block.
0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Go ahead and save yourself the 10 second explanation of it in the block.
DA's:
Link turns case is infinitely more important than you think it is, terminal impact turns case is infinitely less important than you think it is.
0% risk of a DA is possible and I will vote on it. The same is true for aff's as well. If the 2NR or 2AR hinges on "always 1% risk" im voting against you as there is "always a risk" your DA/Aff is fake as well.