Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

January 2021 edition

Paula’s Paradigm

Salutations Debaters!

Please remember that one of the primary goals for competitive debate is engaging in civil discourse. As a judge, the first criteria I evaluate is civility. Debaters who demonstrate courtesy, good will, and generosity of spirit perform more effectively.

I expect a fair and honest debate from all competitors. Please consider what fair and honest means: If you are an experienced debater and you are running a K or CP, especially against a novice debater, you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Ks and CPs are complex devices intended for Policy Debate. If you apply them to an LD round you are changing the category rules in such a way that disfavors an opponent who has prepped for an LD round. If you plan on running a K or CP, my suggestion is you keep a back-up case in the ready AND prior to the round, you confirm that both your judge and your opponent are comfortable with you running a Policy device. If one of those answers is no, run your back-up case. I reiterate, if you run a Policy device without disclosing it to both your opponent and your judge you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Please do not conflate pre-round courtesy with disclosure theory.

On running counterplans and kritiks: Since these are strategies devised for Policy Debate and not as conducive for LD, they should be carefully crafted and run sparingly. That being said, I welcome a creative take on the resolution in the form of a counterplan or kritik. Bear in mind that I must be able to weigh the round with compatible parameters so if you do run a counterplan or kritik you must clearly define how the round is to be framed so your opponent may adequately respond to your case and I have enough criteria for evaluation. Counterplans must contain both an explicit values structure and CP framework. Kritiks must apply a primary line of argumentation originating in critical theory or cultural criticism. Please note: Ks and CPs place unnecessary burdens on the negative case that the neg must fully accommodate. I will not expect an opponent to refute complicated devices intended for Policy Debate without being provided the structural parameters to do so. Therefore, the burden for structurally framing the round falls on the Neg when running Ks and CPs.

Disclosure Theory: The ability to think quickly on your feet (adapting to your opponent during the round) is one of the most important skills a debater can cultivate and will be weighed more heavily than prepping out before a round. I won't judge against a debater who has chosen not disclose on the NDCA or any other wiki. Any time spent arguing on disclosure grounds (or out-of-round concerns) will be regarded as time that could have been better spent responding to what is happening in the round.

Another point to consider with fair and honest debating is intimidation. Please don’t confuse clash, meaningful offense or attacking an opponent’s case with aggressiveness or badgering during a round. Know that spreading in all its various forms is an intimidation tactic and that I consider spreading an equity and inclusion matter. If you are a fair and honest debater, then you cannot simply assume your opponent can accommodate lightning pace. Please be advised: Speed reading will heavily impact speaker points in a negative direction in addition to potentially losing the round.

If you are a speedy reader, but not intentionally spreading, modulate your pace. If I do not catch your framework due to unintelligibility or lack of clarity related to speed you may lose the round since I cannot adequately weigh your case against your opponent’s. I will not interrupt your speech to ask you to slow down. My expectation is a conversational pace.

Please be mindful of the debate format in which you are competing. If you are a Lincoln-Douglas competitor your primary goal is to engage in the realm of ideas, not policy. If the resolution leans heavily toward a policy topic, the best debaters will devise a case which is philosophical and reflective. When judging an LD round, I’m listening for original thinking, insightful analysis, logical reasoning, and summary skills.

I pay very close attention during cross-examination for strategic maneuvering that will allow a competitor to control the trajectory of the debate.

If you and your opponent craft similar frameworks (e.g, the same value or value criterion), please do not tell me “it is a wash.” Weighing frameworks is never a wash. Framework components do not cancel each other out. Argue your position with analysis and reasoning in order to identify why your case better meets the V/VC and by extension, the resolution.

If your value is morality, tell me what kind of morality and why it is the most suitable choice in the context of the resolution. Please don’t use circular reasoning - “because morality means my value criterion is good” or pretense such as “I choose morality because it encompasses all other values.” Simply reverting to the notion that the word “ought” in the resolution implies a moral imperative suggests that the debater has not spent much time researching the resolution in order to understand its assumptions and implications. When I evaluate a case framework, I am looking for depth suggestive of a debater who is wrestling with the ideas embedded within the resolution.

Do reiterate your impacts throughout every phase of the debate, but bear in mind that (for me) extremist impacts like extinction, nuclear war and planetary disaster are less important to the impact calculus as thoughtful and well-developed impacts germane to the resolution and your chosen framework. In other words, I will be swayed by impacts that are expressed through a philosophical line of inquiry or reasoned through in a way that reveals the most significant issues inherent within the resolution.

I will favor the debater who accurately summarizes evidence, evaluates it, contextualizes it, and most importantly, provides analyses that are both cogent and eloquent. Please take care that you do not mistake your evidence for your own original analysis. Be very careful of how you cut cards so the bulk of your case consists of your own reasoning and your own thoughts about the resolution rather than reading through your sources (reiterating someone else’s ideas). A helpful tip for developing your case and presenting it: think in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations.

Do outline your voting issues, but be wary of getting mired in the minutiae of technicalities that reduce the round to a “gotcha” game. Do not assume that the judge flows in the same way a competitor does. Be mindful of simplistic, but common errors like an unanswered point is equivalent to conceding that point. Technically speaking, in an LD debate round, it is not. If your opponent drops an argument, it is an opportunity for you to expound upon your own position with respect to that point. Signpost your refutations and avoid assertions like "My opponent dropped "X" argument, so you can "disregard it" or "flow that point to my side." Not every argument can be answered during the round. The best debaters will strategically choose which arguments are the most important ones to address. While clash is important, maximizing meaningful clash lucidly, concisely, and succinctly will likely win the debate. Represent your opponent's position accurately and do not claim that an opponent has dropped an argument if your opponent has not.

Economic arguments: All too often economic arguments take some form of: “X is too expensive because it costs Y.” This really isn’t a sound argument. An economic argument of quality should demonstrate some notion of economic theory to justify it rather than simply assuming economics itself is neutral. Be aware that modern economic theory originated in 18th century moral philosophy. All economic arguments should be purposeful and grounded in theoretical or philosophical principles. A case with primarily economic argumentation should be placed within an economic framework (structured into the value/value criterion). I am generally unpersuaded by economic impacts or assumptions that government spending or taxation is bad. The very purpose of the government is to tax and spend. Your goal in an LD round is to provide reasons for why the government (We the People) should tax or spend.

When judging PF I look for teamwork and collaboration -- how argumentation is extended between the two speakers and how well they complement each other. As in LD, I’m looking for excellent organization and critical analysis that addresses the resolutional “pith.” PF teams, please consider the LD issues noted above concerning technical minutiae, original thinking, sophisticated casing, and argumentation that is both sound and valid. I’m looking for original analysis and reasoning through the issues inherent in the resolution. One of my primary concerns in PF is crossfire. Please demonstrate the highest courtesy during crossfire. The team that can establish civil discourse during this phase of the debate will likely be favored in the event of a tie. Maintaining civility during crossfire will help the debater(s) control how the debate is framed for the judge.

As in LD, thinking in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations is essential for PF competition. Develop a few significant arguments with scholarly evidence rather than a large number of arguments so you can effectively utilize the limited time in a PF round. Varsity PF debaters — I look for seamless interaction between team members, the ability to crystallize key points, and to concisely summarize the logical components of an argument.

If I am your judge, please feel free to ask for clarification of any matter addressed in my paradigm.

Happy Day!

Paula Jones

Head Coach, Speech & Debate

Golda Meir High School

Updated:10/17/18

I don't get to judge much due to helping run tournaments in the state. Did 4 years HS policy, 2.5 years at Georgia State. Came back to coach in the Milwaukee Urban Debate League, at Rufus King for 2.5 years, and now starting my 2nd year coaching at Marquette University HS. I am in my 9th year of coaching and judging. I have seen and have heard alot of args.

I love policy debate overall.

My threshold for voting on T and if you are claiming potential abuse is low to none. It hasn't happened in the last year or so.

Any questions, just ask.

Background: In college I debated on the national circuit for parliamentary debate. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate. I currently serve as the assistant coach for Marquette University High School. I have previously served as the head coach for Ronald Reagan College Prep and an assistant coach for Solorio Academy High School.

E-Mail Chain: Yes. Send to bjs.debate@gmail.com. (Note: asking me if I want to be on the e-mail chain is usually a sign that you didn't read my paradigm before the round. It is right here at the top...)

Quick Philosophy: I strongly favor a policy making philosophy. Ideally the AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.

Quick Tips:

1. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you.
2. Do not argue a tagline. Argue the logic and evidence.
3. Maintain clash. Line by line is good.
4. Identify voting issues.
5. Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
6. Do not be rude. Be witty. (Wit = speaker point bumps)
7. Have fun.

Longer Philosophy:

- Planless Aff: If the AFF isn't affirming any specific plan, advocacy or course of action, then the status quo doesn't change. Assuming NEG makes that argument, NEG wins on presumption.

- Tech v Truth: I try to prefer tech to truth. Like all judges I attempt to avoid intervention, and a dropped argument is a true argument.

- Links: I do not think enough scrutiny is usually given to link arguments or link chains. I am a big fan of strategies that attack internal links or the link of a disadvantage/K/etc.

- Advantages and Disadvantages: You need to perform an impact calculus. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. Politics DAs are great.

- Speed: Keep your speed reasonable. While I can handle a speedy round, I think teams who slow down perform better - they understand their round better, and I understand the arguments better. Clarity in the round matters. Make sure you articulate and enunciate your words. Speaking exceptionally quickly to try to read more cards or have more, and less developed arguments, isn't effective (and will hurt your speaks). I will let you know if I have a problem keeping up with (or understanding) you, and I'll give two warnings before I stop flowing. I will not use your cards to fill in what I miss because you are going too quickly (or if I stop flowing because I warned you twice).

If you are doing more than 7 off case arguments, you're not giving enough attention or time to all of the arguments, and you're likely relying on speed. I would far rather have fewer arguments with a deeper dive into the issues than more arguments and cursory explanations with an attempt to win simply by having the other team drop an argument that hasn't been developed much at all. I will weigh how well developed and impacted an argument is that the other team dropped when 8+ off-case are run.

- Cross Examination: I flow CX. Cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.

- Topicality: I will vote on topicality, but my threshold for topicality is rather high. Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain either how the AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework or why NEG's interpretation is better (I enjoy debates about what the proper meaning of a word should be and how that impacts the plan or the debate). If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, you have a problem, and your argument is very unlikely to persuade.

- Performance or Meta-Debate: I am not your judge, and you should strike me. My threshold for theory / topicality arguments against performance debate is low.

- Counterplans: I am a huge fan of counterplans, and I strongly look to functional competition. I enjoy a well run process counterplan. Process does matter in the real world and has real policy implications. I am not a fan of consult counterplans, but I have and will vote for them.

- Theory: I am fine with theory arguments and debates. For conditionality, I am fine with multiple CPs and kritiks, but keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. six or more worlds is not very reasonable). I default to reject the argument not the team. If I am to reject the team, not the argument, have a very good explanation as to why.

- Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but I am only well versed in K literature that is based in law and economics. For almost any other K you're going to need to SLOW DOWN and explain your buzzwords / jargon / concepts. If you don't explain the buzzword / jargon, I'm not searching your cards for what a term means.

I strongly dislike K taglines that are paragraphs. That is not a tagline - it's a mini-speech.

The K needs to link to the specific policy case made and engage with the substance of the Aff's plan. If there is no link to the specific policy or no engagement with the substance of the plan, then there is no reason for me to vote for the K. A successful K will (1) link to the specific policy being argued; and (2) have an alt that (A) is a conditional policy option; (B) competes with the Aff's plan; and (C) you have explained how it functions in the real world. If, at the end of the debate, I am left thinking "So what?" I am going to vote for the Aff if the Aff actually results in change in the status quo that solves for something, when the K does not.

For a K-Aff, the alt in the K-Aff needs to meet the same standards as the alt for any other K - the alt still needs to be topical, create change and solve for some harm.

- Off-Limits Arguments: No argument is out of bounds or off-limits in the debate round. Your team can make any argument it wants. If a team thinks an argument is objectionable or morally wrong, then the burden is on that team to explain why and why I should not vote for it. Merely claiming that something is offensive, immoral or "-ist" isn't enough. Why is it immoral or "-ist"? Why is it unfair or wrong? If your team can't explain why, I won't intervene to do the work for you. Run whatever argument(s) you want.

Note: The above should not be interpreted as carte blanche to engage in ad hominem attacks or other personal attacks in the round. You must be respectful to each other.

- Court or Legal Plans/Arguments: I am a UChicago law grad and a corporate attorney when not judging. I really enjoy listening to plans/counterplans/etc that involve the courts or a legal strategy. That said, I will know if you do not understand how the judicial branch functions, and I will know if your plan/CP actually functions or solves the way that you claim. I will not intervene to vote on these issues if the other team does not call you on it, but my threshold for them to call you on solvency deficits is low.

Background

I began coaching debate as the assistant coach at West Bend East in the fall of 1971. I think it was 1973 when I became the head coach. I’ve been a member of NFL/NSDA since 1964 and am currently a 5 diamond coach. I’m a retired Speech and English teacher with 50 years of debate and forensic coaching experience.

Policy

Long ago, I believed in case specific details. I still do. Call me old-fashioned. I won’t mind. I’ll consider it a compliment. I believe that the affirmative has a responsibility to present a prima facie case and a plan to correct the problem. I believe their case is strengthened when it’s supported by a number of experts, not just one lone voice used over and over.

I believe that the negative should attack those stock issues and plan. I have been known to vote on T. I expect the violation to be based on reasonable definitions -- probably not words like: "the", "a", "an" -- get the idea? The change needs to be real, not an "it might" situation.

I do not believe that counterplans (I'll listen to them) should be topical or that every plan will lead to a nuclear war. If that were the case, we’d all be dead, not debating. I like the real world. DA's need to link to the case.

I believe that debaters ought to be polite to each other – well, at least civil. I don’t think debaters should be asking or answering questions during another’s cross exam period. If your partner needs help, work with him/her during the week.

I don’t believe that debaters need to talk so fast that no one could possible understand their words. Where’s the logic in that? Can you win arguments when people have no clue what you’ve said? I simply declare that those indistinguishable words were never spoken in the round and no mention of them will be found on my flow.

I like well sign-posted attacks and responses. I like clarity. I like analysis, not just card reading. It’s not my job to make your argument for you. And if your evidence could actually match the tag you read, that would be a tremendous asset to your side. I don’t like jargon. My world is a no “perm” world. Persuade me with your logical, substantiated attacks. The number of issues is not particularly relevant but the impact is.



Lincoln-Douglas

I’m a purist. I expect a clearly explained value from each debater. I expect clash on which value should have the higher priority or who better achieves the agreed upon value. I expect you to answer the question posed by the resolution rather than the question you want to answer.

Although this is theory debate, a few concrete examples will help me believe your position. BTW: theory means just that. L-D should be about whether we should/shouldn't do something. It's about deciding which idea is better than another. It is not policy debate. It does not require a plan to fix a problem and, with that, it does not entertain a counter-plan ( and neither do I.).

I have the same pet peeves here as in all other debate formats. Too fast means I didn’t catch the idea. That’s bad. Too little analysis means I can’t expect your opponent to respond to it. That’s equally bad –actually, that’s worse. I will listen to anything you want to include in your attack. I will not, however, make the attacks for you. Be specific.

At the end, I expect both debaters to flat out tell me why you win the round. What are the voters?

If my comments sound cruel or unrealistic to you, please strike me in whatever way you can because you don’t want me as your judge. Oh, and, no I won’t hold up the next round with oral comments.

If I haven’t answered your questions/concerns, feel free to ask. I’ll share.

PF

Pretty much the same as what I've already covered. I want clearly explained ideas with evidence. Just because you say it does not automatically make it true. I'm not listening for a specific plan (or counter-plan) to solve the resolution. I want to know which side gives me the better outcome.

Congress

When I listen to Congress speeches, I expected clear, logical, well-documented reasons for supporting your position. I don't want to hear you rambling on the topic in general. I want you to respond to the ideas of other speakers. I want new ideas (not repetition) add to the debate. I do like a "smile's worth" of humor added to the debate.

I'm not impressed by pre-written speeches. In fact, those will likely lower your ranking with me. As a former speech teacher, I do appreciate a well-delivered speech but I prefer good solid thought over smooth delivery. A few stumbles are not critical.

If you're answering a question, get to the point. Don't answer the question you want to answer, but rather, answer the one you were asked.

In the chamber, I expect decorum. I watch to see your participation with questioning and to see that you are paying attention to the proceedings.

I'm a retired attorney, and this is my 13th year of involvement with debate, congressional debate, and forensics. My undergraduate and master's work were in critical reviewing applied to artistic performance disciplines. My professional life has been devoted to framing arguments, crafting refutation arguments and determining the appropriate criteria for evaluation of virtually any type of presentation. I'm a kind and thoughtful person whose main goal is for you to hone skills and become a confident, logical and gracious person.

My life as a lawyer absolutely shapes my approach as a debate judge. I expect the Aff to define the parameters of the debate, and the Neg to attack those ideas DIRECTLY; the proverbial "clash of ideas." I long for the day when the Neg accepts the Aff's framework and beats them on those terms. A distinct v/vc should be woven into the Neg arguments, but should not be presented like a script. The debate should not look like two people giving side-by-side presentations. Aff frames/defines; Neg reacts and refutes. You can guess from this that I am not a big fan of kritiks when the Neg spends too much time on a presentation that does not actively engage. The goal is to be flexible and nimble with what is thrown at you in the moment. I expect the argument to narrow as the debate goes along which may mean you must jettison arguments that aren't getting traction. I disfavor new arguments in summation. Please remember that new arguments are disallowed in rebuttals, but new evidence is not.

I intensely dislike "spreading" because it is a dishonest approach to the debate. I do not believe debate is a card game where the person who jams more ideas/cites more cards into the time period wins, and/or wins hoping the opponent "dropped' something. Dropping an argument is not a point scored on a ledger. It is an opportunity to argue the point from your perspective.

Spreading negatively impacts your opponent’s ability and my ability to absorb your arguments. I can't evaluate arguments that I can’t properly follow. I will caution you if you are speaking too fast. Repeatedly if I have to. But at some point, if you don't adjust, it will impact your speaker points. The most important things to me are the quality and depth of your presentation. You don't have gobs of time to play with so impress me with your reasoning. Please don't cite a card that you don't discuss or are unprepared to defend. Depth and quality rule with me. Accordingly, I do not use a traditional "flow sheet" and I really don't want your written case. I reward people who are fast on their feet.

I do not permit "flex time" and view it as a sneaky way to obtain more cross-x time than permitted. And speaking of cross-x, it should not be an occasion to engage in a discussion/mini debate with your opponent. I will caution you if you step over that line. Cross-x is meant for pointed clarifying questions and allowing your opponent to respond to your queries. If he or she doesn't reply to your satisfaction, then use it in your rebuttal.

I'm okay with counterplans providing the CP does not monopolize the first Neg speech by disallowing enough time for the first negative rebuttal. Counterplans must be shaped in a way that targets the Aff framework.

I am weary of overly-used frameworks like morality/util and unsound impacts like “morality doesn’t matter if we’re dead.” I look for a fresh, creative lens to view the resolution/impacts. I appreciate creativity that addresses real world concerns. Your value and criterion should not be a means to an easy win. It should reflect how deeply you’ve thought about the resolution. We're not all going to die tomorrow. What can we do in the meantime to improve our lot? That takes more intellectual prowess to tackle and is more impressive to me.

Finally, I expect debaters to be kind and gracious. I place high priority on good sportsmanship. Debaters who are kind and gracious will find higher speaker points. I will step in to caution debaters who are rude or unkind to opponents. I expect debaters to understand that everyone is doing the best they can, and that our circumstances and resources are often very different. So, I expect you to meet your opponent “where they are” not where you expect them to be.

Best of luck and best wishes to all.