Foon,+Keisha

Affiliation – Fort Lauderdale High School, Currently Debates for University of Central Florida Email: keishafoon@gmail.com Add me to the chain. Pronouns - She, Her (will also answer to they and them)
 * Disclaimer - Just because I prefer some arguments over others generally does not mean I can not be persauded by them. If you feel like you are the absolute best at a certain argument and you are most comfortable with that argument, go for it. If you put your heart and soul into it, I think you can make anyone believe it *

I have debated on the South Florida Circuit for the past 4 years and have debated on the national scale too so I am familiar with both sides of debate. I am normally a critical debater so I love those debates but I did start on the traditional debate and learned a lot of skills which can be applied to both types of debates so I am down for those types of debates as well. On K affs for FWK, I expect a clear interpretations and reasons why/why not you chose to engage in plan action or the resolution. If not, I will vote neg if the voter is extended - If the best arguments are deployed on both sides, I lean aff (51-49) on whether a K aff gets a perm - the best arguments are usually nowhere close to being deployed - If you're going to go for the K (Neg), either it solves entirely for case or you have to prove that the aff is rooted in such a bad discourse that we can't even touch it - very neg leaning on conditionality, barely aff leaning on 50-state, international, and object fiat, would only vote aff if you run like 10 off. - solvency advocates will make me VERY neg leaning on theory/competition - ethos/organization are the biggest determinants of your speaker points, this means flow what your opponent is saying not what they send over in their speech doc -My knowledge on this topic is a bit vague so either use that to your advantage or get a very distasteful RFD at the end. - I tend not to call for cards when making a decision - this will be especially true if I don't understand your argument, I won't piece it back together for you, scenarios in which I do call for cards are either when there is a critical point of clash being debated well by both teams, or there is no other way to resolve the debate
 * IF YOU ONLY HAVE LIKE 2 MINUTES BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS** -


 * Actual Philosophy**

Stylistic Things - I see debate as an intellectual forum where individuals come to advocate for some course of action – the type of action desired is for the debaters to choose and discuss and for me to evaluate whether it’s a good or bad idea – note, this means you MUST defend SOMETHING (and yes you can defend a cheeseburger for all I care as long as you can make it relevent) - Ethos is underrated – most judges know which why they will decide right after the round ends and spend the time after justifying and double checking their choice. How you hold yourself throughout the round is a massive factor in this. Know what you’re talking about, but more importantly, sound like you know what you’re talking about and show that you understand it enough to win you the round. - Speak clearly – if you can’t you should be doing a LOT of drills (trust me I was there too) I will be very explicit in letting you know if I can’t understand you – after the second time I call clear, I will not evaluate any cards/arguments I call clear on afterwards – I'll flow the next of your cards if I can understand them, this would be strategic as then the other team is responsible for answering them. I believe the incoherency is a great argument to make against a team who sounds like trash can thats overflowing with words and I will vote on it. I hate debates where only one team is the only one understanding what is going on because they are the only one who can understand themselves. - Speed = arguments I THINK the other team is responsible for answering – if it’s not on my flow then it’s not an argument so do your best to make sure it gets there - Set in stone – speech times, only one team will win – everything else is up for debate - An argument is a claim and a warrant – dropped claims are NOT dropped arguments – dropped ARGUMENTS are true and you should avoid dropping ARGUMENTS – my understanding is that claims can sufficiently be answered by claims Conceding an opponent’s argument makes it the truest argument in the round – use this to your advantage - Being aggressive = good. Being aggressive and wrong = bad. Being mean = worst. I know better than anyone that debate can turn ugly real quick and things can offensive and outright disrespectful. Debate should strive to be a safe space. There is a fine line between a politics of discomfort (which can be productive) and being violent toward another individual. This fine line is up to subjective determination by a “know it when I see it” test especially if the other team is crying. - I do believe that arguments about a debater’s actions/choices outside of the current round do have a place in some forms of debate. if My biggest problem is that most of these arguments are non falsifiable and really impossible to prove (unless you magically you video tape your opponents' actions which I find highly creepy). I think that it is important to be genuine but do know that debate can also be seen as a strategic game where strategy can conflict with genuine advocacy. - Cards can undisputedly settle factual questions – analysis (including analysis about cards) settles everything else - I like clean and tech debates - do line by line and answer arguments - don't be surprised if I make decisions that seem debatable based upon technical concessions - I can also be seen as lazy, I don't like doing a lot of work (I'm a college kid, cut me some slack) so I want you to do the work for me. Tell me why I should vote for you. If I have to do the work for you, I'm choosing the option that stands out the most to me and going with it, you may not end up liking it. - Cheap shots will only be voting issues if you give me no other option - what I mean about this is you better go BIG or go home, anything under 1 minute of explanation/warrants/asking for protection will probably be dismissed as a rule of thumb - cheap shots are not good arguments that were dropped, those don't apply to this section, but argument that are sufficiently stupid that they can only be won because they were dropped - I'm super lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine - if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know. personally I don't mind waiting until it boots back up and the other team is watching you while it boots up, Tab however might not feel the same so depending on how pressed on time, I might just make you go off of your flow which is a reason why you should write everything down. I'm not going to wait for you to write it down in this situation so you'll have to suck it up and go.


 * Ethics/Procedural Challenges**

- If you believe the other team is guilty of an ethics violation and I am notified, the debate will end there and I will determine if you are correct. If I notice an ethics violation, I will not stop the round but decide the round based on it after it ends if I believe it was sufficiently horrible. I want to be part of the email chain. Email is posted above and I will personally check evidence need be. - Card clipping/cross reading – Any form of misrepresenting the amount of evidence you have read is considered card clipping.This means if you forget to physically mark during a speech, you better have a crystal clear memory because you will lose if you mis-mark evidence. Audibly marking during a speech is acceptable as long as you explicitly say the words “mark it at ‘x’”. Intention does not matter. I understand if you were ignorant or didn’t mean to but you should have to take the loss to make sure you are MUCH MORE careful in future. Video or audio recordings are a necessity if you want to pose a challenge about card clipping (I'm not going to memorize every word of a speech so you got to show me something). Anything that is 3 words or less (no more than twice a speech) I am willing to grant as a minor mistake and will drop the accusing team for being petty. Double highlighting is not card clipping, just make sure your opponents know which color you are reading, a simple clarification question can resolve this. - Evidence fabrication – it is hard to prove this distinctively from evidence that cannot be accessed – if a team is caught fabricating (making it up) evidence they will lose.Can be seen as Problematic (Not Necessarily Unethical) - Evidence that cannot be accessed – this is necessary for teams to be able to successfully refute your research. If this is proved, I will ignore the evidence and treat arguments related to it as merely claims in my decisionmaking - Out of context cards – this will seriously hurt your ethos and your opponents will probably definitively win their competing claim - Misdisclosure – the only reason why this isn’t above is because there is almost no falsifiable method to prove that a disclosure wasn’t honest – this is probably the most serious of this category and can garner you major leeway in my decision making if you can successfully prove how it has impacted your ability to debate this round. - If I catch you stealing prep (talking during dead time to your partner about the round, messing around on your computer, etc), I will dock half of your remaining prep time - If you mis-gender someone, there are a lot of things wrong here. I won't automatically drop you but speaks will be docked and you also opened yourself up to a new can of worms. I do not like mis-gendering, my partner doe not like it so overall I do not like to be near it. I totally understand if you lived in like BFE and had never heard of different genders but we live in america so watch what you say.


 * Framework**

- I will start off by saying that I am a firm believer in ideological reflexivity – people go a long way in trying to understand each other’s arguments and even embrace them instead of crying exclusion/trying to exclude. - But yes, if you win the tech battle I will vote for framework - Real world examples from the debate community go a long way in proving points in these types of debates – use them to your advantage. Don't read a bunch of cards and make them your explanation. Framework itself is an analytical argument, claims and warrents are all around you. - I think the topic/resolution can be up to debate on what that means. The meaning of Framework is describing how debate should be looked at and done, not so much on how much a topic a plan/non-plan can be. That's topicality, two functionally different things. - Arguments about procedural fairness are the most strategic/true in my opinion – however impacting them with just fairness is unpersuasive and you should couch your impacts upon the education (or lack of) from debates with little clash - In my opinion, copying and pasting supposed policy impacts into framework, does nothing. I will believe that nothing leaves the debate room and those impacts don't matter. If you want to go for those arguments, I want a really detailed reason on why you gain access to those and Aff/K doesn't. - If an aff defends a plan I will be EXTREMELY unpersuaded by framework arguments that say the aff can only garner advantages off the instrumental affirmation of the plan -Also I will dock speaks if you get framework and Topicality mixed up and it ends up gumbled up. I hate it when people do it so this is my way of fighting it in the debate space.


 * Non-Traditional**

- If you know who I am, you sure as hell know that I am the least tradition in the sense of aff's and Ks - CX makes or breaks these debates – yes I do believe that you can garner links/DA’s off of things you say and the way you defend your advocacy even if your evidence says something else, you are the debater, the cards are not. - Always and forever I will prefer that you substantive engage your opponent’s advocacy, you’ll get higher points and the debate will be more educational, fun, and rewarding (especially to a person who always hit framework #the8minuteofframeworkinsems) – however I do understand when there are cases you need to run framework and shiftiness in the way an advocacy is defended can be persuasive to me. - Watch out for contradictions – not only can it make a persuasive theory/substantive argument but I find it devastating when the aff team can concede portions of neg arguments they don’t link to and use it as offense for the other neg arguments - Aff teams should have a clear non-arbitrary role of the ballot – these questions can go a long way in framing the debate for both sides - Evidence can come in many forms whether it be music, personal narratives, poetry, academics, etc – all of it is equally as legit on face so you should not disregard it - I need to be able to understand your argument – I'm fine with most literature of anti-blackness, queer theory, feminism, deep ecology, etc. although sometimes I might not be able to tell what you're actually saying if you go deep into high theory (this can be seen in my face especially if I'm squinting with my glasses on), so be able to also explain in low-theory terms. - Alternative styles of debate is not an excuse for actually debating, do line-by-line, have organized speeches, and answer arguments, I am very flow oriented when judging any type of debate, even if the general thesis of your argument may be superior and all-encompassing, YOU need to be the one to draw connections and explain why the other team's technicalities don't matter


 * Aff/Case Debate**

-Add ons are HELLA underrated - PLEASE utilize them - 2AC’s and 1AR’s get away with blippy arguments, punish them in the block for them - If the neg has an internal link takeout but didn’t answer the terminal impact, that does NOT mean you dropped an impact, logical internal link takeouts can single handidly undermine advantages even without evidence - Make sure your advantages are reverse casual, many affirmatives fail at this and negative teams should expoit that - Super specific internal links that get to weird places were always intriguing and show you are a good researcher, they make me happy


 * Kritik**

-Explaining a tangible external impact (not only just turns case args, although those are also necessary) is key to winning on the neg, most teams don't do this - Permutations are pretty strategic, phrase perms as link defense to some of the more totalizing k impacts and defend the speaking of the aff and you should be fine - Framework and the alt are usually 2 sides of the same coin, please impact what winning framework means - Death good is not a strategic (or true) K in my opinion at all, however there is a BIG difference between death good and fear of death bad


 * Topicality**

- Probably more a fan of competing interpretations - Reasonability is a reason why the aff could win without offense– It means that the aff is topical to the point that topicality debates should not be preferred over the substantive debate and education that could’ve been had by debating the aff - Big fan of reject the argument not the team


 * Disadvantages**

- I’m on team link determines the direction of uniqueness - Politics theory arguments are meh in front of me, I personally never went for them, I just found substantive arguments more strategic - Short contrived DA’s are strategic but ONLY because aff teams don’t call them out for their bad internal links and only read terminal impact defense to them – fix that and they should go away - I always loved good impact turn debates, warming good, de-dev, anything - Turns case arguments are awesome – use them to your advantage and don’t drop themCounterplans/CP Theory - Solvency advocates go a long way in helping you with theory – I firmly believe that they are good for debate - Agnostic about almost every theory question, more persuaded by the aff on 50 state fiat, international fiat, and object fiat - Interpretations are good – you should always have one (even if its self serving) - I'm pretty gucci on this so you do you on

Speaker Points Points are based on two things: content and style. Content is simple, the more your argumentation helps you win a ballot, the better your points. Content includes things like warrant explanation, strategic execution, and strategic vision. Style is as important if not more so than content. These are all the intangible parts of your debating that garner my respect. This would include organization, presence, clarity in delivery, and respect for the activity and your opponents. I also have a horrible sense of humor, by that I mean anything that isn't violently offensive is ok under my book and I'll probably find it funny (this includes awful jokes and bad puns) - take advantage of that Random bonus like things that would boost your points – - Successful and badass risks (impact turn an aff for 8 minutes, kicking the case, all-in’s on strategic blunders, etc) - Making fun of my friends (It has to be funny) - Making really good puns throughout an entire speech ( just one, not all) - k-pop or pokemon references (although a lot of pop culture references are fine too) - Leftover speech/prep time (although if you deliver poorly that shows false arrogance which will hurt you more)


 * If you haven't noticed, this paradigm is VERY similar to another judge on here (ehemmichaelkooehem) reason is 1. His paradigm is very close on how I percieve things as well. 2. I consider him to be an amazing judge and debater back when he was one so I try to learn from him and 3. I really like his paradigm.*

P.S Michael If you're reading this, I'm sorry and I'm a huge fan :)