Hunt,+Shania

Short Version:

Read arguments that are good for debate. Read logical arguments, have some personality, weigh between arguments, and have good explanations. Be sure to slow down a lot on tags/author names/anything you really want me to get on my flow.

Long Version:

I loved debate in high school and believe it is a great activity for kids to explore new areas of education that they otherwise would never have access to, gain speaking skills, and skills on how to advocate for themselves on both sides of an issue. Regardless of my paradigm, I encourage that you approach debate with a similar mindset. It’s a privilege to be debating at any tournament, so you should appreciate that and respect others who might have had a more difficult time to get to that same tournament.

__Background__: I debated for Northland Christian School in high school. I did some debate at UCLA and currently coach Harvard-Westlake.

__**Disclaimer__: don’t read arguments that are bad for debate.

If you plan on reading/doing any of the following… - aprioris - permissibility/presumption or anything that triggers permissibility/presumption - completely unnecessary theory - cases with majority paragraph theory - offensive arguments like racism/sexism good holocaust good (even if your case is supposed to be ironic—don’t do it) ..then stop reading my paradigm and don’t pref me. If you must debate in front of me and this is your normal strategy, just don’t read these arguments. I don’t want to devalue debate as an activity where you get to choose what you run so if you read them and make me vote off of them, your speaks will probably never breach a 25. If you read them in general, good luck breaching a 27. Read these arguments in front of other judges.. not me.

^Pictured above is me sad because I had to vote something that devalues debate.

Obviously, I think debate is a space to express yourself, and I don’t want to roadblock your self-expression. So, if you want to continue with these types of arguments, just don’t read them in front of me.


 * 1) sorrynotsorry

__Things I like:__ honestly, I'm pretty much fine with any position you want to read so long as it doesn't conflict the above standards. I understand your policy or K or phil positions or random topicality and theory. I know more about certain theories than others, so regardless of what you defend, just explain it well. I won't vote off of something that is not clearly explained in round. I'd prefer you read more policy type positions since that's what I mostly read in high school.

__Things I don’t like__: look at disclaimer above, here are the other arguments I don’t like and how to make them bearable in round. - Generally, I don’t like it when a more-experienced debater will destroy a less-experienced debater in round. Win the round, but win it kindly because this is the type of thing that makes less-experienced debaters want to stop debating. I will give you lower speaking points if you destroy a less-experienced debater that you can obviously beat without spreading or reading 4 theory shells. - If you want to read something generally more confusing or dense, just don’t go lightning speed and please explain your arguments. I like good, well-explained positions. - If you are too fast or unclear, I will not get your arguments. So don’t be upset at the end of the round when you didn’t get the win if you are doing this. - Honestly, I’m not the biggest fan of theory. However, I do think that theory is a strategic and necessary tool at times. If you are going to read theory, please implicate in the position how theory ought to factor into my decision calculus (via voters or otherwise). I will //not// default fairness or education or competing interps or reasonability. This is the job of you as the debater to give me my decision calculus on all arguments. So if you don’t say how to interpret theory, expect it to be weighed evenly against any other argument in the round. - I will probably //not// presume because there is //almost always// offense in the round. I will probably //not// vote on permissibility unless the resolution demands permissibility as a key part of ground, which I doubt any resolution would. Don’t waste your time reading your “Presume aff!” and “Permissibility flows neg!” args because they are wasting everyone’s time.

__What will get you good speaker points__: they will be based on a combination of clarity, strategy, and arguments. I rarely go above a 29.5 or below a 26. I will give you what you deserve, even if you think you are a fantastic debater. I will //not// tell you what your speaker points are after the round, mostly because I probably haven't determined them yet. - //explaining// arguments. I never understood this well enough as a debater. The better your explanation of arguments, the better your speaker points. - //weigh// between you and your opponents arguments. Trust me—you’d rather not have me weigh the arguments for you. So just tell me how I prioritize arguments and what arguments are better evidence wise. - //be clear// – If I can’t understand you, I can’t get your arguments down, and that sucks for everyone because you don’t get to have arguments on the flow and your opponents miss out the opportunity on a good, educating debate round. - //have fun// – if you are having fun, that will reflect on your in round persona and make the round more enjoyable and not a snooze fest for me. You also will get particularly good speaks if you are clever and interesting in CX.

Just because you read things I like doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily vote for you just as doing something I don’t like mean I necessarily vote against you.

And, while there are rare exceptions to the rules of paradigms, don’t hedge your bets on being the one exception.

If you have any other questions, ask them before the debate. If you have any general questions about why I feel so strongly on some arguments not being in the debate round, feel free to email me at huntshania@gmail.com.

Best effort!

XOXO -SH