Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.ĭeciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with fur vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.Īrguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).įile Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. The longer version (for all forms of debate) If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.įairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Share me to the speech doc ( but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out. Ignore it at your peril.ĭefault policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. The TL DR version (applies to all forms of debate). Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views. ![]() “If you’re so sure you can take me in hand.Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. The air crackled with the tension between them. The heat in Ferdinand's gaze intensified his pulse was in his throat. ![]() Hubert held up the collar the leash was already clipped into it. Hubert making stupid decisions due to extensive psychological projection and being in denial.For featherhearted Fandoms: Fire Emblem: Fuukasetsugetsu | Fire Emblem: Three Houses
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |