Paradigm

Rose Larson
Lake Highland Prep

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate@gmail.com

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland

College Policy at West Georgia 2022-2023, NDT Doubles, CEDA Quarters

Currently College Policy at Kansas

If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources.

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average LD debate, with the most experience in phil, k, and policy, and the least experience in tricks and theory. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. All things equal, the debates I most enjoy are phil, k, topicality, and traditional debates. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.

An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't say words about words they've said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. I will not vote on an argument I cannot explain via claim, warrant, and implication back to your opponent in the RFD. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it.

Evidence quality matters a lot, I'll probably read evidence in close debates, and I won't fill in the blanks for your incomplete highlighting. I would prefer well-warranted analytics to bad, under-highlighted cards.

I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash. Do with that what you will.

Debate is supposed to be fun and educational, but it also means a lot to a lot of us, so it's okay if debates get heated and passionate, don't pretend like this doesn't mean something to you if it does.

Random Argument Thoughts:

Topicality should include case lists, preferably both an offensive and defensive one.

I default to counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty (this just does not make sense to me in the way its used in debate as a philosophy student), RVIs, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, evaluate the debate after x speech, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style of debate. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker

I will not give a 27.5 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.