Laverty.+Kenneth

Kenneth Laverty

Affiliations: James C. Enochs High School (graduated 2013), Debater with the University of Nevada Parliamentary Debate Team (2013-present) I’m a first year debater at the University of Nevada. I debated for two years in high school in LD but dabbled in every form of debate California has to offer (in the YFL). I went to state in California during my senior year for LD and OA. I usually judge in Reno at the tournaments there. As a debater now, I run policy arguments at every chance available. Im also not a fan of just hearing taglines with backfilling later. In general, being blippy does no good in front of me. I prefer one substantive argument over multiple underdeveloped ones.

Humor: In general, I also like to be entertained. If you are going to have a heavy debate, I welcome the opportunity to lighten the mood with comedic moments.

Framework: I would prefer post-fiat policy-making as a framework, but if you really want me to do something else, go for it. I will go off the framework provided to me.

Speed: In general, I think speed is a tool that is exclusionary, but has become so intertwined with the status quo that it cannot easily be avoided. That being said, I am relatively new to the practice of speed. I can hang to some degree, but do not assume that I will be able to flow every single one of your arguments if you go as fast as possible and are blippy. Slow down on important stuff that you don’t want me to miss. Also, trying to go faster than you really can, and stammering/stumbling through, annoys me.

T and theory: I see T as a means for protecting yourself in a round. I look for coherent standards and actual clash on competing interpretation/competing standards debate. I don’t like the idea of T being used as a time suck, so don’t assume that I will vote on a 20 second T shell that had no effort in it. If you think you need that T vote, put the time in to make it substantive. I see theory the same way.

Disads: I like them. However, not all disads are created equal. I love well warranted disads. The more specific you are with them, the happier I am. I don’t want to hear a tics scenario that just says the plan makes the GOP mad. I want specific coalitions that are against the plan. I want to hear about how the internal link story. Without an internal link story that is well developed, you are behind in my eyes.

C/Ps: I like them. I will also listen to your theory behind them if it is substantive.

Ks: Be careful. I like critical thoughts but I am not kind to generic Ks. I look for specific links that are substantive. Without such, you are only putting yourself farther behind on an uphill battle. Also, don’t make these come off as personal attacks against the other team. Alt should solve.

Performance & K-Affs: Don’t do it in front of me. Debate is the wrong format as far as I’m concerned. I think that it is your job to be on topic. I’m all about predictable burdens and methods of refutation. Don’t skew your opponents out of the round by running something that removes that.

Cross-x: Make it substantive. I really don’t like it when people ask for elements of the other team’s case because they can’t flow. I feel like that is a waste of time and would prefer that you be asking good questions.

Rebuttals: Explain to me exactly what the most important arguments are in the round. Don’t just give me a tagline and expect me to work for you. Contextualize everything. Do impact calc.

For LD:

I think there are two levels to every LD debate: 1. We must chose the superior value. 2. Then we chose the winner of the round based on which case best achieves that value. You can lose the value/value criterion debate, but that does not mean you lose the round. The best LD debaters realize this is a reality in front of me and adapt accordingly.