Delph,+Kyndall

**UPDATED FOR TOC 17** Debated for 3 years at Little Rock Central High in AR Debater at KU they/them/theirs pronouns **"If you can't dazzle me with excellence, baffle me with bullshit."** **General** email is delphdebate@gmail.com I'm a first year out off of the HS circuit, debated on Latin America, Oceans, and Surveillance Currently debating at the University of Kansas I consider myself to be pretty flex when it comes to arguments that teams want to read. I debate more Kritikal but you should read whatever arguments that you are comfortable with. Any racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc will be met wth speaker points that reflect, so don't be an asshole. **"Truth over tech?"** depends, most debates if you are winning a structuring claims about things i tend to lean more truth over tech, but tech concession of impact/link turns etc etc i also find persuasive **specifics** **Look,** I'm probably not the judge you want in a strict 'policy v policy' round. Being more of a Kritikal debater and judge and I haven't really judged a lot of disad and CP debates throughout the year. With that being said, I will try my best to evaluate all arguments but I will say for those debating making sure your disad has a clear link story in the 2nc, i'm game to CP theory, and etc etc. T is probably an arg you dont want to go for in front of me **Theory** I have a certain threshold for certain arguments that I will vote on in theory debates, I think condo is a definite aff/neg ballot if it gets dropped in the neg block or rebuttals. I tend to vote neg on presumption, in those debates I think a lot of the perm debate and solvency portions of both sides are important to those rounds. CP contextual theory, perm text theory, textual severance, etc etc im all game for theory. i think theory debates get underutilized a lot **Case** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think this portion of the debate is always underutilized and a lot of affirmatives get away with weighing impacts of badly constructed advantages with bad internal links to their impacts - impact turns are cool yo. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Now to what you've been waiting for** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K aff** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I read them, I think that you should read whatever you read on the aff. I will vote for them, but I at least think they should be in the direction of the topic and a reason why the topical version doesn't solve. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Performance** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If performance is your thing - go ahead go for it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**FW on the neg** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will vote on a neg FW but I think that there are certain arguments that I'm gonna have a harder time pulling the trigger on, i.e. fairness. I don't think fairness is something I would absolute vote on but of course that all depends on the round. I also think the neg should be doing a lot of work why the state/usfg is worth it, why the aff isnt good for a model of debate, or why the judge should care. Generic args on framework aren't gonna cut it for me tbh, i need a concise way of why i should view the debate through the neg and why the aff doesnt solve etc etc. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Read them is HS, still read them in college. Pretty versed in most of the lit but you shouldn't use a lot of buzzwords in front of me. I think you should say why the aff is uniquely bad and how the alternative can resolve its impacts and the squo. Why perms don't solve, links are disads, etc etc. I find alternative debates to be the most shallow, I think even if you are winning reason the links are disads you still need a reason the alt isn't the squo. Role of the ballot arguments are self-serving but it makes is a lot easier to evaluate them when they are dropped or not contested by the aff. Aff teams : FW on Ks is underutilized, I think you should make arguments about why you should get to weigh your impacts vs the K. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Any other questions just ask before the round**