Pickens,+Jazmine

Hi there, To give a short bio of where I am coming from in debate, I debated 4 years at C.K. McClatchy High School. I've recently graduated and attend Weber State University and am a freshman debater. Now that those irrelevant logistics are out of the way, I'll get to the part that yall might care about most "What do I need to know for Jazmine to vote for me?" Well this is where I insert paradigm here:

Speed- I am fine with speed but I ask that you are as clear as possible. If speed causes a trade off then go slower-this is most helpful to me becuase I get to hear your arguments and see how the debate is shaping.

Fashion- Now CKM PH (shout out to the FABULOUS TONY HACKETT) was known for having a little added flare, so have swagger, not cockiness, and that will greatly influence how I percieve yall's presence in the debate and speaks. Don't be rude and respect your opponents' arguments because I will. Ask for gender pronouns before the debate to make it the most inclusive space as possible. As Beyonce would say: Carry ON

Framing- I am going to be honest with you, I think that this a dying art in debate. So often debaters forget that these speeches are orations and your time to tell me why your impacts matter and why they should be preferred over your opponents. Most debaters are at par with defending their impacts but are light to nonexistent on interlacing that with other impacts happening in the round. In order to break the 28.8 speaks meta framing is going to be essential in proving that you deserve it.

ROB-often times these are arbitrarily thrown out without any real analysis as to why that has anything tangential to your advocacy or alternative position. So if you are sitting on the ROB as a reason I should view debate through your lens, then your framing needs to be on fleek. I also think that you should leverage your ROB more offensively and work into the debate rather than just stamping it somewhere.

Theory- I am a judge that will vote on theory. I think theory, like framing, has to be contextualized to the round and you need to point out the things that they did and why this sets a BAD precedent. It will become very clear to me that you are reading a very generic theory block that I promise you will not get the job done. Be thoughtful and connect substance to form in terms of reasons why what they did is so bad for debate in general or for that specific debate round. Just impact theory out and I am down. If it is shallow at the end of the debate, be honest with yourself, and don't go for it. Respect theory with due dilligence in order for it to make sense.

FWK- In high school I was not a fan of this argument because I find it hard to believe that the negative has lost alot of ground in the round. But, I have found myself shift in this area of debate as I have been introduced to a softer version of fwk that isn't just "you don't defend the state, that's bad". I find it the job of the negative to garner offense as to why the method of the 1ac is 1. inconsistent with the resolution and 2. why we should center the DISCUSSION around why discussing legalism and actions by the U.S. can solve but also are net preferable for a better debate. PLEASE-do not go for precedent arguments or portable skills because I am just ideologically opposed to these arguments because I don't think that a critical aff negates the possibility of creating productive advocacy skills. You need to win reasons why their choice of method either doesn't allow for engagement with solutions that produce material change or why they do in fact kill engagement strategies for the neg. The education and decision making skills need to impacted for me to persuaded why your interpretation is net better for debate and for engagement purposes.

Think about your topical version-it will be obvious that you just slapped together if you have not thought about how the topical version resolves the 1ac impacts in a way that fits your interpretation.

AFF-Don't think that means I won't default to fwk-I think that the 1ac is always already offensive to this argument so you should really leverage the aff against alot of the internal link claims to fwk. If you read 40 DA's on fwk there is probably a risk that they aren't well warranted so you should focus on your best offense and prioritize this as reasons to why your affirmation is the best scholarship. Spend time expaining to me why your interpretation is net preferable and an accessible ground for both the aff and negative. But just don't under cover because I will pull the plug on fwk. Topicality-if this is a time skew that doesn't have potential for being competitive against the aff then don't waste your time. I vote on T, I think that it is a neccessary procedural that sets the precedent for the aff, but similiar to FWK-it needs to be clear the neg ground that you lose. I love when evidence is clashed on T and why evidence on questions of scholarship on definitions matter. I think that the AFF needs to have a C/I that is reasonable that does not kill the ground of the negative and have a staunch defense of reasonablility then I think that you do your job.

DA's I don't encounter them as much as my ideological approach to the resolution is to more critical. That being said I do think that DA debates are valuable discussions. I LOVE T/Off DA's because it forces the AFF to think about the opportunity costs of the aff and how far it can solve external forces that implicate its solvency. I am more focused on the I/L and impact debate then the link debate. This does not mean that I don't evaluate this portion but that my argumentative bias lies in the world where the direction of the DA is true or false. Impact comparsion is very importatnt to me because I want to know why I should care about the prospect of Nuclear War over Global Warming or Structural Violence. Spend TIME on this because it shapes how I evaluate the round at the end of the debate. If you are winning the heck out of the link of DA but are lack luster on impact level there is a chance that you lose because I don't think that your impact was prioritized.

CP- Read the CP text slowly-I need to know what the CP is and how it competes with the AFF. I LOVE internal net benefits because it means that the CP is stand alone with out a net benefit like the politics DA (which I am not entirely a fan of but if you win on the I/L and Impact level I have to vote for you). Make the difference in mechanism between the aff and the CP clear because it helps me understand why your advocacy should be perfered over the CP. EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM of THE CP!!!!

AFF-If you are going for the perm you need to sit on this argument for a bit because I need to know why the mutual exclusitivity of your arguments is not that strong. So I think that you need to spend time explaining why the AFF comes first or is the internal link between the CP and the AFF or that the AFF neccesiitates portions of the CP.

Kritiks- I am more versed in this part of debate because it is where I garner most of my competition. I don't think that you should assume that I know the lit that you are talking about so the LINK needs to be explained to me so that I know what the aff has done that is bad, distracts, tradeoffs to the criticism. If this is a more straight up AFF then I think that your fwk arguments can be integrated in how you answer permutations because you always already should make arguments why your epistemology comes first or why the negative's epistemology should not come first. I find these debates stimulating because it is the framing for the round that I as a judge have to evaluate with the link stories with both the AFF and the NEG. If the AFF is more critical, I find that these debates get a bit more sloppy because everyone is showing off their big words and nebulous extrapulations of whatever it is that you are saying. HOLD the LINE and explain the link story to me on both sides. I am more flogo centric in these debates because the nature of these debates tends to get messy and I need to hold the line somewhere.

I can be persuaded either way as to whether or not critical affs get a permutation, look at my theory portion to see how I evaluate these questions. High theory-don't assume I get it, explain these interesting things to me and then I can follow

I hate shallow extensions of the ALT-you need to win that it solves so there needs to be a developed explanation of how it resolves the aff or does something productive.