Wirtjo+Leonard

Updated for Nationals 2016 Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE
I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

- With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

SHORT
I believe that the beauty of debate is how we can use the discussions that we engage in to improve ourselves and change the world around us. Forensics goes far beyond the debate space, as it gives us the opportunity to become the link turn to the disads within our own lives, be sure to keep that in mind. __ As a general principle I'm pretty open and I'll vote on whatever you decide the round comes down to, it's your debate space, and your time to shine __, whether that means you run a narrative, a traditional stock case, sit or stand, flex prep, That's all up to you, be yourself and have fun with it.


 * __ Background: __** I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.


 * __ Things I like: __** Voters,Clash, Impact weighing, Topical links, Critical arguments, Real world application, Being polite, references to anything that happens to be on my netflix que. Incorporating music into your round. Flashing cases if its a progressive debate round. //Impacts that don't include nuclear war,// link-turns.

**__Things I dislike:__** Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Debate is about coming together and sharing one another's differences, not about further exasperating the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Not giving a road map/signposting, making a new perm arg in the 2AR (yes that’s a thing), stealing prep time. "as an off time roadmap", not articulating the link 2 impact level, If there's anything else feel free to ask :)

LONG
MISC. Important Things-


 * If you think something runs even __**the slightest risk**__ of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning
 * If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
 * Need to win the link to win the impact
 * Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
 * Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
 * I'm a speaker fairy, but the 30 is also sacred.
 * I'm super super lenient with prep when it comes to flashing.
 * I tend to flow straight down, - I very much vote off the flow
 * Dropped arguments are important
 * I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am.
 * Don't make args outside of your social location - I really don't want to hear white people read Wilderson, i've heard that too many times already.
 * I call for cards probably more often than i should.
 * Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
 * As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
 * CX is binding.

-- Policy ---

__ Types of Affs: __ Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, just note a couple of quick things

1. PTX Affs – Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. - I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the aff as a mechanism to outweigh. 2. Performance, im really really fond of these arguments, but i need warrants as to how/what the performance does specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if i vote for an aff ballot. Also some sort of topical link, or warrants as to why that is not neccesary. Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me, and the FW needs to be crystal clear. Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic.

__ Neg Strats: __

__ T: __ .If the aff that you say is not topical is on open evidence, and is one of those affs that everyone is reading more than halfway through the season and you make predictability claims, there's a chance i'll stop paying attention, on the T flow. Otherwise I'm fine with it, but before you go for it, see if you think that you can win on impact calc, etc

__ Kritiks: __ K debate is my favorite, but there are a couple of things to note. Just because you decide to read it doesn't mean that I have heard/read it before, so if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved. Secondly have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also i need you to tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?) i'm really not a fan of vauge alts at all, and historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack articulation on the alternative. Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.

Things I am extremely familiar with and probably know better than you: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

__CP/DA:__ Thoroughly enjoy hearing these debates, especially when impacts are unique and there's more to the extinction link besides 5 seconds of a card that has the word "probably" splattered all over it that you purposely don't read. PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff. Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

__Politics__: Feel free to go for it but it will probably require a little more work compared to most judges on the Squo/link level.

LD---

__ Topicality: __ I'm fine with it, but before you go for it, see if you think that you can win on impact calc, framework, etc. Before you read it. Focus on the competing interpretations of it. I generally default to drop the argument before I drop the debater depending on the argument, but you can convince me either way. But as a rule of thumb, not my favorite argument to listen to.

__ Theory: __ I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.

That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for teams who may be disadvantaged.

__ Condo: __ I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

Also as an autistic person it’s really unfortunate to see the way that disabled bodies are marginalized in all forms of spaces including the debate space and if you would like to be involved in how to address these arguments within debate, or just need a fellow nuerodivergent person to talk to please feel free to talk to me.

"Become the link-turn to the Disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@me.com