Bryant Cong Paradigm

Last changed 8/2 12:01A PDT

Bellarmine '17

University of Southern California '21 (not debating)

bryant.bcp@gmail.com

Background:

I debated 4 years of policy at Bellarmine College Prep in San Jose, CA. I started out as a 2A during my freshman year, but spent my remaining 3 years as a 2N. I read and researched arguments from all over the map – from one-off security to flex policy counterplan/disad strats to identity args like settlerism. I haven’t had any experience on this topic, so will probably need some explanation of acronyms, T interps, etc.

Quick Notes:

tech >>>>> truth - run 6 off, go one-off K, read a performance aff, anything goes - just win the line by line.

I have no ideological preference when it comes to nontraditional affs versus framework; I'll vote for whoever wins the tech.

I love smart analytics – a series of good ones can take out a poorly constructed advantage.

CX is important and I will bump up speaks if you incorporate it well into a speech!

Author quals, evidence date, and evidence quality matter – please use them to do comparative analysis

Tech > Truth:

I will listen and try to fairly evaluate whatever argument you read in front of me. You do you – I don’t care whether you read a nontraditional aff, read 7 off, or go one-off spark – as long as you win the flow, you win my ballot. While I have my dislikes, everything about even my philosophy and my argumentative preferences is up for debate – just win the tech.

Topicality:

Limits is the most persuasive standard to me. I am persuaded by the arg that an unlimited topic decreases effective rigorous testing and nuanced engagement of the aff.

T is about a model of the topic, not just your aff.

I default to competing interpretations – to quote Ani, if affs want to go for reasonability, “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps”.

Disads:

Fine with generic/topic disads, but I love super case-specific and well researched disads.

The more specific the link, the better.

I love well-articulated and smart turns case args – talk about why your disad’s impact turns not just the aff’s impacts, but their internal links. If you have cards for turns case, read them.

There is such a thing as 0% risk. Most cards tagged "extinction" don't actually say that, which is an argument that both teams should leverage.

Counterplans:

I'm fine with most counterplans - as long as you have a solvency advocate reasonably grounded in the lit, I'll be happy. If you don't, just win the tech.

My favorite counterplans to judge are well-researched and specific PICs, my least favorite are bad and technical process counterplans.

I think that counterplans that just have a counterplan text can be super strategic, if deployed properly.

Kritiks:

The difference between a well articulated K and a terrible one is the link work – don’t just read your preconstructed link block, use points from CX and quotations from their ev.

Link turns case is a fantastic argument.

I love overviews with good framing issues/turns case args/tricks in them – but ideally your speech isn’t just 8 minutes of overview.

I’m most familiar with, in descending order: security, neolib, cap/Marx vs. K affs, settlerism, identity args, Bifo, other high theory.

Kicking the alt can be great when done right – but know when it’s a horrible idea to do so.

Framework:

Contextualize your framework claims to the round – don’t just read scripted overviews and blocks.

Procedural fairness and any internal links into it are the most convincing standards to me.

Quoting Ani again: “Impact comparison is very important - if the aff’s model makes it substantially harder for the neg to engage but the neg’s speech act was problematic, which way do I vote? Make sure to warrant internal links - I’ve seen lots of neg teams just assume that all K affs make engagement impossible to their detriment.”

I will reward negative teams that have a better strategy than 2-off Framework and Cap K against K affs – other kritiks like Anthro, Chow, and identity args can be super strategic when deployed properly.

Theory:

Most comfortable with 2 condo – feel free to read higher than that, but I’ll start leaning more and more aff on theory

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Bellarmine Rhetoric Debate Tournament 11/28/2018 CX F Finals Indla & Iyengar Talur & Thompson Neg Neg on a 5-0
CNDI Round Robin 8/1/2018 CX RR Round Ortiz & Hefley Christiansen & Williams Neg
CNDI Round Robin 8/1/2018 CX RR Round Gray & Koh Gopal & Gopal Aff
CNDI Round Robin 8/1/2018 CX RR Round Wang Marin & Galian Neg
CNDI Round Robin 8/1/2018 CX RR R3 Carrasco & Aggarwal Goyal & Ayala Aff
CNDI Round Robin 8/1/2018 CX RR R2 Rothstein & Kuppahally Yuan & Birkenstock Neg
CNDI Round Robin 8/1/2018 CX RR R1 Chang & Tsai Lovett & Zhou Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 2018 7/9/2018 KBCX 5 KilBee GL KilBee ZL Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 2018 7/9/2018 KBCX 4 KilBee RW KilBee LY Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 2018 7/9/2018 CX 4 Sib Tiger LS Jaguars GB Neg
Cal National Debate Institute 2018 7/9/2018 CX 3 Sib Tiger KR Jaguars WN Neg
Cal National Debate Institute 2018 7/9/2018 CX 2 unBEARables NM RazzBearies AC Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 2018 7/9/2018 CX 1 Sib Tiger FC Turtles VJ Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX Semi Notre Dame PS McQueen RR Aff Aff on a 3-0
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX Quar Harker SB Alliance Stern Math and Science LS Neg Neg on a 2-1
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX Octo Notre Dame UY Downtown Magnets PW Aff Aff on a 3-0
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R6 Notre Dame PG Damien BJ Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R5 Harvard-Westlake WB San Marino BK Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R4 Notre Dame UY Harker SB Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R3 Downtown Magnets PW Notre Dame KS Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R2 Classical Independent TT Harker MZ Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R1 Notre Dame MK Northwood GL Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 JV CX Final West Campus HM Northwood TL Neg Neg on a 2-1
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX Quart Notre Dame PM College Prep NW Neg Neg on a 2-1
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 N CX Quar Northwood AI Delta Charter BD Aff Aff on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R6 College Prep CM S. Eugene H. S LS Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R5 St George's GV CK McClatchy FS Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R4 Notre Dame NU CK McClatchy RM Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R3 La Costa Canyon MM CK McClatchy KM Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R2 College Prep MP Northwood LL Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R1 College Prep GH CK McClatchy MV Aff