Jump to content

Hotstepper

Member
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About Hotstepper

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Will Katz
  • School
    Washburn Rural
  1. Also qualifying out of D3 during run-offs: Kansas State Amanda June Ramirez and Alonso Pena. If I'm not mistaken, they are both Garden City alum.
  2. I mean this is partially true. Most often, however, the 1ar will straight turn but the 2ac will not. For instance, 1nc reads a politics da (pc internal link, econ impact). The 2ac might say bill won't pass, plan popular, winners win, pc not true, no impact to econ collapse. This isn't a straight turn because the neg can concede defense (either of the last two). Let's say the block extends this disad and answers every argument. The 1ar now has the choice of which arguments to extend. They very well might only extend the offense (won't pass, plan popular, winners win). If this is the case, the 2nr must go for this da (or answer the link turn and go for another da)
  3. Name: Will Katz School: KU Major: Chemistry/ Political Science Debating (Y/N): maybe
  4. Don't forget Linda Pei of Northwestern qualified out of the D5 Tournament
  5. http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/CE+Byrd/WebHome;jsessionid=372FCA00986FC487457B5E73078A000D
  6. I vote neg. I think the cp solves sufficiently- the 1ar/2ar do very little warranted analysis why engagement is key- you just assert it. This means aff try or die framing is much less relevant to me. I also think the neg is lightyears ahead on the politics debate- political capital probably solves the menendez warrant, which is all of the 2ar on uq, the leogrande evidence is substantially better than aff link cards. There is also no impact d in the 2ar, which the aff banks on to answer the turns case args, so I give the neg a pretty substantial risk of those.
  7. I don't think I've debated a kapaun team this year. And I was not at KU. Maybe you're thinking of a different WaRu debater
  8. What school do you go to again? Sorry, my memory from the first tournament is failing me
  9. I'll judge- I try my best to be tab- I have a few biases that I try to minimize. I'd rather see good debating on an arg I'm not familiar with than terrible debates on args I go for. T- like it- you should have a coherent vision of the topic- interps/counter interps like "this aff is topical" annoy me- you should be defining the term in the rez, not the plan. I default to competing interps, could possibly be persuaded by reasonability, but the aff would have to be pretty far ahead DA's- love them. You should read them. I'm pretty convinced politics da's are in fact intrinsic to the plan. For politics, I think uniqueness can control the direction of the link, but I'll listen to arguments contrary. For disads where uniqueness is not as much of a yes/no question, I find link controls uq persuasive. CP's- I think that cp's should probably have a solvency advocate. One condo is probably fine, and 2 makes sense, more than that seems unnecessary, but do what you can defend. If you win conditionality is bad against one conditional advocacy, then I will vote aff- debate is a technical game. I'd prefer cp's to be textually and functionally competitive, although functional competition seems more relevant to me than textual competition. K's- Not well read in the literature, however, they are just another argument. To go for a K in the 2nr, you have to 1. explain your argument well enough so that i can explain to the other team why they lost 2. make specific arguments about why the 1ac (preferably the plan) links to the kritik 3. Make sequencing arguments about what to prioritize 4. Make args about why the k outweighs and turns the case Theory- I'm probably decent for the aff on theory just because I'm willing to listen to a theory debate. I think that debaters should leverage their standards that the other team probably dropped (because they probably just inserted their conditionality good block) and implicate why that outweighs/turns the opposing standards. I will not vote on perm theory. that is clearly a reason to reject the argument. I will vote on cp theory, but there must be an overwhelming reason why it is a voting issue. K aff's- My default is that the aff will defend the implementation of a topical plan. The further from this statement you stray, the harder it is going to be to win in front of me. Again, do what you will defend, I'm not going to vote you down on pure ideology.
×
×
  • Create New...