Last changed on
Fri December 1, 2023 at 8:34 AM CST
I'm Jaden. I'm a student @ UT - I have been debating since 6th grade in both LD and policy. Went to TFA and bid tournaments. If you'd like to use an email chain / share speech docs, please use jadenb0622@gmail.com
In an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why the affirmative is a bad idea.
I have debated and judged most args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.
UT UPDATE: It's my finals szn so if I seem frazzled, cut me some slack.
As a debater, I often went for anything standard for a Varsity LD debater; I have debated args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.
I think the word "unsafe" means something, and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly -it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. This applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. Suppose you believe that the debate has become unsafe. In that case, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism to resolve safety issues. Similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. That said, the standard is high for what would make a genuinely unsafe/abusive debate round.
I WILLevaluate Disclosure Theory if the violation is apparent. However, that comes with the burden of proof.
IMPORTANT STUFF
- Speed: Slow down on tags, interps, and analytics. I flow on paper. If you’re a numbers person, I would say I’m good at flowing about a speed of 6* on a scale of 1-10 (6 for finals weekend), maybe a 7, but try what you would like; I'll say slow if you need to slow down. This is particularly true for K/T debates
- Timing: I will begin your time on your first word. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. You will keep track of your own prep time.You should also keep track of your time.
- Signposting/Roadmaps: I will be much happier and more able to fully understand and follow your arguments if you signpost and number them!!
- No, I don’t believe you can re-insert verbal highlights you did not read.
- Disclosure is good. Reading disclosure against a small school with no Wiki page might make me smile because I'll hope you're joking.
- I love evaluating a good 2NR/2AR, give judge instructions, and make my job easy — I will be happy, and so will you be with your speaks. :-)
- On tricks/skep: I'll play a trick on you.
I would love to see a good topical, impact debate this weekend, but everyone's got a dream
Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:
-
Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
-
Affs/NCs that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - I think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain cannot process/flow it at high speeds.
Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter. Racism = bad
Have fun fr! I will try to adapt to the debate you want to have.
Thanks,
Jaden