Chace,+Alyaa

I loved this activity when I participated and I obviously have personal preferences about what sort of things you should do and shouldn’t do in front of me, but I really just want you guys to have fun. I debated for Byram Hills in New York for 4 years, and I competed extensively on the national circuit in my junior and senior years. As a debater I ran a lot of critical arguments, especially towards the end of my career, but in no way do I hack for these sorts of arguments.

I honestly want you to do you, with obvious limitations. Its pretty evident if you’re reading a teammates case and don’t understand what’s going on. It just makes the round unnecessarily muddled and if you aren’t able to explain how you are getting offense and the way your offense interacts with your opponent’s, I’ll give them some leeway.

On specific arguments and mindsets prevalent in the community these days:

Framework:

I like a nice framework debate and if this is your forte feel free to go for it. If you’re going to read dense philosophy/some intricate deont framework or an obscure framework, be sure to try and slow down on the tags and be able to adequately articulate your arguments. A lot of people are trying to hijack frameworks these days, and I feel like that’s a really valuable tool if executed correctly and explained well. I honestly couldn’t care what exact framework you run in front of me, but know how it functions and be able to articulate it. Meta-ethics are also fine, but if you’re going to delve deep into action theory, please make sure you can articulate it well in the rebuttal speeches.

Theory: I feel qualified making the right decision if the round breaks down to theory. That being said, I have seen and taken part in too many rounds where it just becomes a muddled and irrelevant theory debate and the judges are just sitting there shaking their heads and hate themselves for the arguments they end up voting on. If you’re going to go all in on theory and especially if its going to be muddled, I want some form of weighing to make it easier on me to evaluate the debate. I also really don’t like disclosure theory (proceed with caution). I think that theory should be used as a strategic tool, but actually use it strategically. Just getting up and reading 3 shells on a novice isn’t going to improve my opinion of you and I’m probably going to get pretty pissed. Frivolous theory is ok, but I really would prefer and will probably end up giving you higher speaks if you run theory when it’s pretty clear there is abuse in the round. In terms of defaults, I will default to competing interps and drop the argument unless there is an in-round justification, but this never really seems to be a big issue. I’m good with RVIs and I’ll be lenient to RVIs against really frivolous and pointless shells. Meta-theory is good, but I notice that a lot of the time when new layers are introduced on the theory debate, the implications of the different shells get colluded and it’s unclear how they function in terms of each other. Weighing is great, and please, please give me something that I can use in my RFD so I don’t feel like I’m intervening when there are two arguments extended with no interaction.

Critical stuff: I was a big fan of pre-fiat arguments and I think that they can be used compellingly in the debate community. I don’t mind if you’re going to run these arguments, but a lot of the time these rounds get really personal and I don’t want you to just spend your speech berating your opponent for being offensive when they’re really just trying to understand what is going on. Even though I read critical arguments, if you’re running an obscure or complex pre-fiat case, don’t assume I’ll get everything that you’re saying and just slow down on tags and authors and be ready to explain what’s going on.

Behavior: I think that debate is a great educational activity, and I feel that when you are incessantly rude or condescending to your opponent, it really harms the educational value of the round and makes everyone feel uncomfortable. There is a clear line between teasing jokingly and just insulting your opponent. Just act like yourself and don’t feel any pressure not to do so. Also, stealing prep is bad. I’m not going to be a stickler on this but its pretty clear when people are doing this and if you delay the round constantly I won’t be happy. Those 15 seconds you try and delay to think of one or two more arguments probably is a much less marginal benefit than me getting angry at you for not starting your speech when you should.

Speaks

Ill hand out high speaks to people who are efficient, explain the round effectively, and give me a clear ballot story.

To conclude, debate is an educational activity, but the friends you meet both in round and out of round made it such an enjoyable activity for me and I want you guys to have a good time. If you have any other questions, just ask me before the round starts or send me an email at achace13@gmail.com