Fennell,+Katherine

Stuyvesant High School ‘17 UC Berkeley '21 Summer 2017: Instructor at NSD Flagship, NSD Philadelphia, and Texas Debate Collective Email: kathfennell1999@gmail.com - feel free to email me or message me on Facebook if you have any questions about this paradigm, or for speech docs. I won't read through the speech doc until after the round, though. Note: Open links for doggos to make you happy

Updated: 2/18/18

Hi folks! My name is Katherine, and I debated LD for Stuyvesant in NYC for four years, and qualled to TOC my senior year.


 * __Tldr__**; you do you and I’ll do my very best to evaluate the debate. (Almost) Everything in this paradigm is a default, if you argue against them I will evaluate debate through your lens.

One of the things that I have learned to respect about debate as an activity is its incredible openness, which means I will do my best to not impose any dogmatic views on you. This is your round, you do you, whether it’s performance or plan flaw or must spec status theory or a process PIC or dense ideal phil or tricks, and I’ll do my best to evaluate it.


 * __Defaults__** – these only matter if no one makes any arguments to the contrary. I'd really prefer not to have to go down to defaults, so please make arguments.
 * //If you read theory (paragraph or shell) in the 1NC/1AR/2NR, you need to justify voters (fairness/education/drop the debater) or else I will not evaluate it because it is not a complete argument. This means, if your 1AR says "condo kills aff strategy because it creates a moving target and allows the negative to go whichever flow the 1ar undercovered, which kills fairness," I will not evaluate it because there is not voter or implication.//
 * If you read theory in the 1AC and don't justify voters, the 2NR gets to contest new 1AR voters.
 * I will default competing interpretations and no RVIs
 * Strength of link on layers/impacts. If strength of link is irresolvable, then I'll use these defaults as a tie breaker:
 * T > theory > substance
 * Theory > K
 * Fairness > education
 * Pragmatics > semantics
 * Truth testing


 * __General Notes__**
 * I am fine flowing whatever speed you want to go. I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary. I don't flow off of the speech doc, so if I keep saying 'clear' and you aren't adapting there is a solid chance I'm missing arguments.
 * I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc) -- otherwise, I will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
 * I do not think it makes sense to read a ROB of "rejecting capitalism" and then impact justify it (ie capitalism causes oppression, cap causes extinction), and then try to exclude negative consequentialist impacts.
 * Extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
 * **__Weigh__** **everything as early as possible** (ie as soon as there are two impacts to weigh) – weigh the DA against the aff in the 1NC, weigh the T standards in the 1AR, etc.
 * Going big picture is just as necessary as winning the line by line – don’t get bogged down in the line by line, make sure to be giving big picture stories and analysis and write my ballot for me.
 * If you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. This does not necessarily mean go full on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs. Your speaks will go way down if you are debating someone who clearly isn't experienced in nat circuit debate and you are rude/exclusive/inaccessible.


 * __Flashing__** –
 * Flashing doesn't have to be included in prep time, but compiling the doc does.


 * __Theory__** –
 * I am fine with disclosure theory/out of round violations if you have a verifiable violation
 * Feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (ie friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse. I won’t penalize you either way. Don't think it's my place to police [|what] theory interps are friv.
 * If you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. I would prefer if the brightline was not gut check because that is super stressful for me (too much pressure fam). If you don't give a brightline, or give a brightline of gut check, I will probably gut check competing interps.


 * __Kritiks__** –
 * This is the debate I went for most when I was in high school. I am familiar with a good amount of literature, including many race arguments, queer/quar/gender theory, Deleuzian/faciality stuff, security, fear of death, cap, legalism, etc. I am open to whatever. That being said, you should err on over explanations and don't assume I know the lit you are talking about. **I will only vote on arguments made in the round, not on my understanding of the literature.**
 * K ‘tricks’ are great and I am totally fine voting for them if they are won– VTL, alt solves case, floating PIKs, etc. They probably need to be at least hinted at in the 1NC. (See this article).
 * I think the conceptual divide between Ks and phil is pretty arbitrary. Ks should have a ROB/framework to evaluate impacts - People often read Ks with an unjustified consequentialist framework which makes it really easy to answer with a phil aff. Just because you say the word "role of the ballot" doesn't mean it isn't on the same level as the FW
 * Link analysis is key – make it specific, quote aff evidence in the 1NC, have an external impact to the links (ie not just the aff does X and that’s a link, but the aff does X and that is bad because Y and leads to this bad impacts


 * __Util__** –
 * Impact turns on DAs are good – I’m fine with cap good/bad, extinction good/bad, econ collapse good/bad, warming, etc. Death good/bad is also fine, too.
 * Empirical warrants should have statistical methodologies, sample sizes, etc – good evidence and study comparison necessitates methodology comparison and will be rewarded with higher speaks.
 * Please weigh impacts and internal links (IE compare the way you access X impact versus how they do).


 * __Phil__** –
 * I have come to enjoy phil debates very much. I did not executed this debate much in high school, but I am becoming more familiar with the literature and arguments. I much prefer a good phil debate then a bad K debate. That being said, definitely err on over-explanation, especially of dense philosophical frameworks.
 * To quote Parker Whitfill: “What would Kant do?”.
 * You should make sure to be super explicit when comparing framework warrants and explaining what type of warrants come first (ie epistemology, actor specificity, action theory, etc)


 * __Tricks__** –
 * I am probably going to be annoyed by your tricks if it's an argument that's like "I defined this word as this, thus vote aff" -- arguments need warrants or I will not vote on them, even if conceded. I would must rather you have a smart trick like a thoughtful contingent standard instead of one that would justify voting one side every single round
 * If you are going to be sketchy, then at least be open about it. Watching kids pretend they don't know what an a priori is in CX is awful
 * A prioris or other sketchy things need to be clear in the first speech or else I’ll probably be convinced for reasons why they should get new responses.
 * If you go for a trick, you actually have to go for it – I will probably not vote off an argument that was extended for 10 sec in the 1AR or 2AR


 * __Performance/non T affs__** –
 * Totally fine with whatever you want to do. Preferably your aff is in the direction of the topic and provides a coherent method and role of the ballot to evaluate the debate, but I’ll of course listen and evaluate whatever.
 * Make sure if you don’t defend the resolution, it’s clear that you don’t defend the resolution or you defend some method affirmation of the resolution
 * Be nice to kids who don’t know how to engage your aff

__**K affs v. T**__ –
 * I don’t have a leaning on this debate and won’t decide ideologically. You should both be making arguments specifically in the context of the 1AC, not just “K always comes above T” or “T always comes above the aff”
 * I tend to think that affs answering T/FW need to defend some model of debate instead of just impact turning theory, this debate should be a debate between competing models of debate, weighing the DAs and net benefits to each model instead of just floating impacts that are never interacted.
 * Extended the TVA without any analysis/implications done is not persuasive to me. You have to explain what the implication of winning the TVA is (ie which arguments does it exclude?).


 * __Speaks__** **–**
 * I’ll give speaks based on strategy, technical proficiency, in round persona, how interesting you make the debate, good collapses in the 2NR/2AR
 * Things to get higher speaks:
 * Start off slowly at first and get faster gradually
 * Slow down and pause on author names/interps/plan texts.
 * Say "And" or "also" in a different tone of voice when you are transitioning to a new argument in your case.
 * Look like you are having fun and aren't miserable
 * Collapsing in the 2NR/2AR and giving a ballot story
 * Don't waste a ton of time flashing.
 * If you are mean or obnoxious in round I will be sad and prob hurt your speaks :(

__**Misc. Notes:**__ 1. Because I think one of the most valuable parts of debate is its lack of static limits, I think arguments that assert limits to debate without really justifying them are very unpersuasive. To quote Paul Zhou: "I find appeals to jurisdiction/the constitutive norms of debate as warrants for models of debate (e.g. truth testing) to be incredibly unpersuasive. The paragraph at the top that describes the value I place in the incredible openness of debate is a large part of that. While I'm certainly open to whatever model of debate you forward, claiming that it comes prior due to jurisdiction/constitutive norms seems like you are attempting to win your model simply by claiming "that's just the way debate is." While I have voted for these arguments in the past and will continue to do so, know that I am usually persuaded by answers that appeal to debate being an open activity. I would much prefer you actually justify your model for debate as better for debate." For more information about this, or other reasons why truth testing probably isn’t constitutive of debate, reach out to Parker Whitfill.

2. To quote my dear friend Kathy Wang: " **__ IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT DEBATE IS A SAFE SPACE. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS WITH ME. __** i don't give a shit if the real world isn't safe. debate, as a place to compose advocacies and solutions, should be an inclusive space. this means a) yes, i do believe in trigger warnings/content warnings. if you genuinely trigger someone in-round without providing one and don't apologize/show respect about it you will get an L20. and, b) saying anything blatantly oppressive -- racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/classist, and all others when i am in the room and you are under my jurisdiction will result in a huge speaks tank AT THE VERY LEAST. c) if you are genuinely uncomfortable or triggered, stop the round. i will not judge you. i understand that things are sometimes overwhelming. your safety always comes before a sick 2NR. d) please just be a decent person. if you do not respect everyone else in the room, i will not respect you. i generally try to be a kind person but i have really low tolerance for people who think they're too good to do the same. i know this whole paragraph is written pretty aggressively but i'm usually a cheerful (if a bit tired) kid and i've never had to flip shit at anyone, please don't be the first."