Ross,+Dain

I had a really nice 3 page paradigm on my phone, but iPhone Notes is awful so this will have to do. (Updated: 7/20/17)

I've been debating (1A/2N) at Caddo Magnet High School for 4 years.

Please add me to the email chain unless you're debating paper (throughout the debate, not just the 1AC): drcaddodebate@gmail.com - Feel free to email me with questions after the round, but bare in mind that I'm a high school student with too many AP classes.

TL:DR - Don't purposefully make offensive/hurtful arguments, you will lose. Otherwise, I'll vote on any argument whether it's five minutes of heg bad (or good) in the 1NR or a well executed framing argument in the last ten seconds of the 2AR. Write the ballot for me and explain what you think the nexus question of the debate is, and why you best answer that question.

Framework: The Affirmative should try to clearly win a terminal impact, and weigh that against the negative's model of debate. Simply saying, "The education provided by the Affirmative is key," is not persuasive. Education is a broad term and it's terminal impacts should be debated about considering it's the topic. Framework is not topicality, there is a difference. T: USfg is much less persuasive than a well-constructed interpretation for what your model of debate should look like. Don't be afraid to read framework in front of me just because I'm critical.

K's: I enjoy running and listening to kritiks, and I'm familiar with a fair amount of arguments. Some kritiks I've read include capitalism/ neoliberism, security, apocalyptic rhetoric, environmental pessimism, settler colonialism, anti-blackness, Nietzsche, and Agamben. For any arguments that aren't included in the list, explain your arguments and assume I might not immediately understand buzzwords or phrases (you shouldn't rely on them even if I know what you're referring to). For the negative, don't include massive overviews unless there is a clear setting you need to provide for the debate (such as when running a k that needs to create a broad story first). Offense should be distributed throughout the flow, although short impact overviews at the top are fine. PIK's are tricks, and I don't like voting on word PIK's that are read in the 1NC (i.e. the imperialism PIK). For the Affirmative, win and leverage your key points of offense and the case. Round specific framework arguments of why the case matters are much more persuasive than "plan focus first."

CP's: Well-thought out counterplan strategies are awesome. Innovative, multi-plank counterplans or cheating steal-the-case strategies will win you speaker points, but the same one-card consult counterplan that never makes it into the block just wastes flow paper. Affirmative's should answer cheating CP's with cheating permuations that are justified by theory and competition arguments.

DA's: Well-structured disads are great and should be contextualized to the Affirmative. If you are going for one alone in the 2NR, you should have reasons they don't get to weigh the case, such as case turns and mechanism interactions. The best policy debaters are able to paint pictures of the status quo and the world of the plan, comparing both and weighing their impacts. Bob Ross references will win you an additional 0.1 speaker points. Read paradigms :)

T: Topicality is a gateway issue that I will evaluate before any other offense in the debate, don't drop it. Also, please don't run T against Affs that clearly meet both teams' interpretations.

Theory: Theory should usually be gone for as a reason to reject the argument, which takes out the Negative's primary source of offense resulting in "rejecting the argument" and "rejecting the team" to become the same thing. No conditional advocacy interpretations on condo are persuasive.