Burnite,+Kate

Hey- I'm a sophomore at University of San Diego, doubling in accounting and poli sci with a minor in philosophy (plz don't throw any bullshit at me cuz I'll know). I debated in a super traditional circuit most of the time, national circuit like once a month for four years. LD, PF, Congress, that stuff. I'm still very fresh on this topic but I'm super into it so do ur worst.

UPDATE- halfway through Berkeley, I have doubled down on my belief that policy args are bad for debate. They 1. dictate the only important impacts in the world are extinction 2. make my ballot almost useless bc i am NOT, in fact, a policy maker and 3. allow horrible speakers to win. I like heavy philosophy, Ks, and theory. I will vote on policy args, but i will likely scowl at you the whole time.

Overview: 1. give me some framework 2. recognize that i'm not the fastest at flowing 3. come up with something cool to say I’ll listen to anything, but I NEED some framing. Don't care what it is, just give me something to weigh. I need some sort of framework, extensions, explicit links between offense and framework, and a solid speaking style. Incidentally, I think spreading is a bad norm for LD but like I was complicit in that too so I won't ding you for it.

Specifically:

On case structure: give me an evaluative mechanism. It doesn’t have to be value/criterion based (although I do love a good value debate) but you have to give me something. A big part of my ballot is weighing between the evaluative mechanism; offense under a mechanism is secondary to which mechanism I should prefer. Please also flush it out- err on the side of overexplaining your mechanism.

On offense: I’ll listen to anything you want to read. For full disclosure, I focused mostly on more traditional offense, but I loved the idea of kritikal positions in addition to more policy offense. Make the link to framework clear- I won’t do it for you. Also extend your stuff, which means give me the author, a tag, a simple explanation, and why it matters.

Theory: I dig it. Tillman Huett coached me for a while, if that helps. Theory debate should absolutely have space to become a more accepted part of LD and when it becomes abusive, it legitimizes the people who think we should get rid of it. Please read your theory meaningfully. I know the difference between an abusive case/debater as well as you do, and my threshold for the argument will vary as such. I like the traditional structure of a shell but if you want to do something different make sure you’re telling me how and why it should affect the ballot.

Disclosure theory: Dumb. Read it if you want, I’ll weigh it like any other shell, but it will bum me the hell out.

Tricks or spikes or whatever: Totally cool with it, a few caveats: make sure you know that strat opens you up to theory, and I have to be able to flow it in your first speech. That second one is key because I was never the best at flowing speed anyway and its been a while. If I can flow it, you’re fine, just know that you might have to lower the bar for me a little bit if you’re throwing a bunch of spikes at me. Also, just me, please number them. It’s the nice thing to do.

K debate: Totally fine. If it’s a basic K I’ll probably have a basic familiarity with it, if its super unique explain it a little more thoroughly.

Plan/CP/Disad stuff: you Gucci. Try not to hold your opponent to any crazy standards about their offense under your plan though. You still have to give me some sort of framework. Also, these args irk me because i'm like old now

Speaks: I'll probably give you speaks that are higher than most judges would think you deserve unless you actually say something that makes me cringe (think ANY microaggression and don't do those) If you're spreading, change up the pace on important things. If you aren't, make your speeches compelling and appealing. Ways to get bonus points from me include references to rap and making me laugh. Do this at your leisure. Probably won’t give below a 27 unless you have actually made me think you are a terrible person. My goal is to never be the judge that gave you the low speaks so you got 4-2 screwed.

I love judging. I love debate. I love writing really thorough ballots and giving feedback. You can always email me with questions before round or while doing your prefs with questions, or you can email me after round for extra feedback and explanation- kburnite@sandiego.edu