Ding,+Richard


 * Creds to my ex-partner Matthew Graca who allowed me to commandeer and edit this

11/16/16

Gabrielino High School 2011-2015

If you are going into the round with 5 seconds of prep: Everything that is not the Politics DA >>> The Politics DA

Kritiks > Policymaking (This is true for both the aff and neg) Tech>Truth in all instances I’ve watched a round where the two teams and the judge abolished speech times and had an open discussion about Maquiladoras. If you can justify why your argument deserves my ballot, I’m down to vote for some wonky ass shit. I will ask for what you are reading (if it is electronic), and I will follow at random intervals, just as a precaution. For email chains, my email is rddding@gmail.com. I will evaluate the evidence post-round only if it is absolutely necessary. Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it. Explanatory overviews are much appreciated, especially for nuanced strategies and positions. If I'm confused, I will look confused. Take advantage of this. DO IMPACT CALC OR I WILL GO FOR THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT

GENERAL STUFF (1) Topic Familiarity: I am not familiar with the China topic. Please explain your various economic programs, acronyms, etc. (2) Delivery: Speed is not a problem for me, but using audible cues such as increasing the volume of your voice and slowing down instinctually puts my pen to paper. Do so for things you want me to flow. Please also have some sort of indication of when you are reading the tag of the next card. I tended to say “and” or “next”. If you are unclear, I will yell “clear” as many times as necessary for me to understand you. (3) Volume of content: Start with as many positions as you would like, but collapse the debate for me in the rebuttals. (4) Strat preference: I used to read Spark, Wipeout, Nietzsche, Death Good, ASPEC, Satire/The Onion, etc. If it’s edgy, I’ll probably enjoy it. I’m not a huge fan of the CP/DA, but I’ll vote on them. I also hate the Politics DA with a passion. JUST ASK ME IN ROUND. More than anything, go for what YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH (but please, feel comfortable being risky). But if you try to go hard on the paint with no paint brush, it's gonna look hella awk. (5) Cheap shots: If it has a voter, they are voters. It's up to the other team to say why they don't count. (6) K FWs: Whoever does the better debating on the interpretation is what I will go with in the round. If you’re reading a policy aff, be prepared to thoroughly justify why policymaking is good. I’m very easily convinced that fiat is illusory, so weigh the educational ramifications of each interpretation for me. (7) Views on T: I’ll vote on it even if the aff isn’t blatantly untopical, but you better spend a solid amount of time in the block and 2nr explaining to me what their aff justifies and why it’s bad. (8) CP threshold: I mean justify your conditions, tell me why you should have that international fiat if it becomes a problem. I don't take issue unless the debaters do. Honestly I don't have much experience with deeper CP theory, so use with that information what you will. (10) Offense/Defense vs Reasonability: That's up to the debaters to say which side I should err. However, reasonability is risky since it's pretty nebulous, but if you think you can trust me with your T debate that's up to you.

FRAMEWORK If you’re hitting an aff K, it will be much easier to win me over with your own K, but if framework is your jam, by all means go for it. Frame the framework by indicating what interpretation of debate you desire and why that is net beneficial for debate. How I feel about things such as selfish RoBs, etc. is determined by what you tell me I should feel about them.

KRITIK

I dig it. I’m as dense as a brick, so regardless of the K I’m gonna need a good overview explaining your jam. Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What I need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving back the land to the natives? how are you committing revolutionary suicide in this liberal as heck debate space? This stuff should be explained. THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES (1) Cap + spinoffs: A staple in the policy diet, I can easily understand it as long as there is a good explanation of the alt. (2) Nietzsche + spinoffs: I was the 2n that only went for Nietzsche. If you read it badly, I will be a S A D B O Y. (3) Security + spinoffs: another staple. At one point I ran a security-based satire aff semi-seriously (now isn't that ironic) (4) Race: I dig it, ran a myth of the model minority/antiblackness aff senior year. (5) Everything else: I always enjoy learning something new, so explain your terms and how your K functions and we’ll be Gucci.

THEORY THEORY THEORY

For the love of all that is holy, slow down on this shit. (1) For organizational purposes I would follow much easier if you put your theory in this fashion: Interpretation: The rule

Violation: How they broke it

Standards: Why that’s bad

Voters: Why that’s an aff/neg ballot This will also let me know if you’re serious or if you’re going for some dirty communist cheap shot - I see so many theory debates where y'all are just blasting lines at each other, doing no form of impact calc to your theory, etc. That shit is not appreciated. (2) Apparently dispo has different definitions? I learned it as “they cannot kick if it’s straight turned.” Therefore if you complain about dispo without offering an interpretation, then I’ll assume this definition. Full disclosure, this interpretation of dispo is top tier and pretty fair imo. (3) Some violations aren’t big enough to warrant a loss; rather, a concession. I will totally buy it if you say “ok, we’ll kick T if they rescind their no link arguments.” (4) As you may be able to tell, I am a big fan of theory that DOES NOT operate in a vacuum. You’d be surprised what you can do with T-subs and a spending DA. (5) In-round abuse stories are very convincing. Similarly, not having one makes your theory unconvincing. (6) judge kicking: the more autonomy you give me over our RFD the more unhappy you'll be with my decision :P (7) "the status quo is always an option" in the words of Scott Philips, this is just a jackass way of saying you're condo

SPEAKER POINTS

Speaks are organization + ethos I'm new to this, and I never really cared too much about speaker points when I was debating, as long as I was as clear as I could be on 300 wpm. I don't know how judges are able to make the tenth's distinction, so this will be a ballpark estimate of how I feel in this regard. Speed does not play a role in speaks; audibility and fluidity is first and foremost, followed by the funnies. Being an asswagon will severely drown your speaks. Being sassy/joking is fine, but if you're making the entire 2 hour experience we share extremely awkward with your salt, then that just ain't right. I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and extremely angry" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style. 30: MLK spoken in 300 wpm.

27.5: Rough around the edges, but I hear most of what I need to hear.

25: ...y'know, life shouldnt have to be this hard