Jump to content

AndydaGuy

Member
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About AndydaGuy

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/19/1989

Profile Information

  • Name
    Andy
  • School
    K-State
  • Location
    Westminster

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    andydaguy
  1. I have to say, this camp probably had the biggest impact on my debate career. Went two summers, and debated for K-State for a while. Great camp No reason not to go.
  2. Congrats to all. It was nice judging all of you.
  3. I think this is a superb idea~ I can volunteer as well. I've sent you an email with my info -Andy
  4. I can contribute. Just tell me what you need. ie. disadvantages, case negs/frontlines/"satellite" K's on advantages, framework, A2 critical impacts, i have tons of nanotech stuff. I won't cut politix updates though. My strengths are on discourse kritiks
  5. I got the privilage to judge their last round. You guys were Great!
  6. When will it be possible to see the roster for all the teams competing in cx? Im guessing it will be GW:4 East:4 Bearcreek:1 and Standley 1. I wonder if we can get it even more specific to the names of the teams?
  7. I am so confused. What's going on in this district, what schools are in it? (wyoming??)
  8. I'm excited to say that Standley Lake WILL have a policy team
  9. Can someone give me some info on judge registration and such..?
  10. So I will be around at a few tournaments so I guess I'll give my paradigm. I debated policy in high school with mz.taylor pulhamus. I now debate for K-state, and my view and experiance with policy has kind of dramatically changed so if you feel like you knew me in debate, I wouldn't rely on that to determine how you operate in the round... I'm fine with speed (under the assumption that you're clear), open cx is fine, asking questions using prep is fine, I don't care really what you do. As far as my ultimate paradigm goes, I'll vote for anything as long as you give me a framework to look at. Framework being reasons why to vote; this does not mean showing me why policy making good is or bad, but rather why certain arguements come first like an impact calc or a discourse comes first arg, otherwise I vote under an offense v defense perspective which I feel increases my judge intervention so you might want to avoid that. On specific args.. Procedurals like T or any Specs: I'll vote on these assuming you have a solid interpretation and standards with voters being extended. If you're going to go for one of these in the 2NR, I almost usually expect you to go all in, otherwise you probably didn't cover it enough in your speech for me to pull the trigger. DA's: I'll obviously vote for these as long as you have a good link story and impact calc. CP's: I'll vote for these too (including topical ones, pics, etc). If aff has a problem with a pic, they should run theory. If neg is running a pic or whatever, they should also be able to justify it. I also think the Aff has the ability to run multiple perms. I believe perms text competition but that doesnt mean you can't make them offensive. If aff does run multiple perms, I really hope they don't go for all of them in the 1ar. but all in all, dont make cp/perm theory debates a clusterfuck. Don't go for a consult cp in the 2NR, its sketchy, but I think consult cp's could be strategic to garner relations links to a DA. I'll vote on CPs that pic out of dirty words including the words "the" and "it" so don't just whine to me that the cp is stupid. I need reasons. Case: I'll vote on solvency turns. I hardly will vote purely on a solvency deficit, but I feel like you should use these defensive arguements in conjunction with a DA or something to give you more leverage. Also, by case arguements, please don't run it like a stock issues paradigm...i won't penalize you but its annoying. Also, I spec is like any other procedural, meaning it should be constructed like any other but...dont run these around me to often eh? Theory: I'm fine with theory as shown above in the cp section, however, I believe theory is one of the most judge subjective arguements so keep that in mind. I only think they are useful when either 1. shit hit the fan and its a last resort, or 2. the other team completely drops it and its an easy way out for you. make sure you articulate voters here. I also don't mind theory on k debates or other framework args. K's: I hated K's in high school but now I probably run these more than any other arg. I'm a really big fan of discourse K's and feel these are really strategic to use as little satellite k's on advantages, but make sure you tell me discourse comes first. In a K debate, make sure you have solid link stories, but most importantly a really good alt with alt solvency cards. I'll vote for impossible realism alts and utopia alts just make sure you really explain the alt's solvency and justification. Simply saying something like "reject capitalism at all instances" won't do you any good unless you show why rejecting cap at all instances would solve. But I'll vote for any K whether its like biopower, cap, feminism, securitization, or stuff like heideigger/baudrillard. Affirmatives without plans, perfomances, aesthetics, and other wanky shit: I'll vote on these too. Don't just cry to me and say these args are cheating, i need reasons why, likewise don't run these arguements TO CHEAT. If you're going to run one, run it right (I know running it right is subjective but you know what I mean) But any other specific questions feel free to ask me.
  11. Standley Lake will have 1 Team Chhay/Lee Lee being my sister
  12. Aww who made the nanotech aff this year?
  13. Well if anyone needs my help on anything, I'll gladly help out
  14. Accepted: K-state I don't have much of a variety :/
×
×
  • Create New...