The Hoover Buc Classic
2019 — Hoover, AL/US
Narcy Amireddy Paradigm
Hey, I am a junior, and this is my third year of LD.
I like to see traditional cases at novice tournaments, but I am okay with non-traditional if done correctly.
Give roadmaps before each speech. (except 1AC)
I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.
I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.
I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.
Signposting is very important.
Voters help me weigh the round.
Most importantly, keep the debate clean. At the end of the day, debate is meant to encourage critical thinking and improve real life skills. Let's do our best and have fun whilst in the round.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am more than happy to answer them. Looking forward to see you guys do amazing.
Neema Ashou Paradigm
While I believe every good argument is backed by solid evidence, as a judge I'd prefer a well-thought-out, logical argument backed by strong examples and evidence over a case that is just straight cards. Below you'll find four important points about my judging (point d will not effect how I vote in the round).
a)I am more likely to vote for a team that spent time genuinely educating themselves on the topic in preparation for the tournament.
b)The team that communicates their knowledge of the topic the best will probably win over a team that is pretending to be experts on the topic.
c)A crafty argument is not the main thing I'm looking for, but it is icing on the cake.
d) Asking for evidence and completely stalling the round, while the other team is fumbling around for their evidence, is my pet peeve.
Hope Bae Paradigm
I debated pf like 4 years ago and judged last year but things seemed to have changed? So I don't really know what is going on now but based on when I did compete/judged:
1. I'll keep time if needed, but for the most part, time yourself
2. Don't be rude
3. I will call for evidence if it seems sketchy
4. Give impacts
5. No spreading, you can talk kinda fast but if I can't understand you I can't write it down
6. Framework debates...no!
7. I'll think of more when it comes to me
Dan Bagwell Paradigm
I was a policy debater at Samford and a GTA at Wake Forest, currently an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate policy.
I’m open to most arguments, regardless of event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I’ll judge the contents of the debate, not impose my preferences on the round.
• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.
• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped arguments are not automatically winners – you still have to do the work to extend the warrants and explain why they matter.
• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.
• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.
• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.
• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.
• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.
• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.
• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.
• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my policy background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.
• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This is the most under-developed part of most LD rounds I’ve judged.
• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs or “consequentialism spec” are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.
• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.
• Theory means reject the arg most of the time, except for condo.
• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.
• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.
• Nuanced links are important - specific links to the aff will go much farther than any generic args like “state bad.”
• Having a clear alternative that solves is important; be sure to explain exactly what it entails. Alternatives like “reject the aff” are usually a hard sell. I usually evaluate K debates in terms of who has a stronger chance at solving their respective impacts.
• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.
• Caselists, plz.
• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.
• K affs that are directly linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.
Jamie Davenport Paradigm
Put me in email chains or feel free to email me some questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com
I'm a senior at Samford and coach our novices and sometimes coach at high schools, it varies. Debated CX while at Samford and LD in High School.
for eTOC: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust.
Do what you want. Fairness is probably k2 education in T debates. Can be persuaded that education reigns supreme with the right impacts. You can skim the high school section to get an idea of how I otherwise perceive debate but I'm generally a go with the flow type of debater/person. I'll imagine fiat is real for policy debates but can be persuaded otherwise. If you're doing a style that is not plan-text big-impact AH, define by what standards I should evaluate the round and we'll be good.
I don't like theory debates. I need a lot more explanation of them to understand them so please be clear if this is your strat and make it easy to understand. Further, please don't pref me if you're high theory because I don't get it. If you're confident in your ability to explain it in an extremely clear way, go ahead, but I'm warning you that it's an uphill battle with me.
High School Debaters:
I don't care if you sit or stand or how you present yourself -- do what makes you comfortable.
Follow @SUDebate on Insta if you're cool
GENERAL LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I'm cool with all experience levels and I'm mainly out to help everyone improve the debate community.
Some pointers to get me on your side:
- Don't be rude - which includes: racism, sexism, elitism, etc. Also don't just yell - make your words smarter not louder. I could very easily be convinced to vote someone down for exclusionary behavior in the debate space. If the transgression is severe enough, I may make that decision without your opponent having to make the arg and I may report you to your coach/the tournament director.
- Road maps and signposting are A+! If you don't know what that is, ask me before the round.
- Don't be overly aggressive in Cross-ex - especially if you're just trying to scare your opponent.
- Don't assume I'm stupid - If you want to make an argument, make it. If you explain it well enough then you can overcome any stupidity I may or may not have. This has literally happened where a debate opted to not make an argument because they didn't think I would understand and I'm pretty sure they lost the debate.r
- Please time your speeches.
I dabbled in policy-type LD while I was in high school - I was closer to progressive debate than not. As mentioned, I am also now debating Policy so I'm pretty open to most "progressive" arguments: Kritiks are lit, counterplans are cool, disads are fine, I've adjusted to plantext affs and like them now, I think Topicality doesn't have to be run as a separate page but should be a shell with interp, standards and voters. Ask about anything else.
I've seen some... interesting.. arguments that hinged on like multiple-world theory, trivialism, etc. I'm cool with you running these types of arguments. You're going to have to win abuse args but you can always try. Typically you can run whatever you want in front of me - I like to learn new things.
I can handle speed - I discourage all out spreading because LD is very analytical and I would like to hear what explanations you have. If you choose to spread please email out the doc to both me and your opponent as that is a regular practice for Policy debate, which you're clearly trying to embrace.
I will probably automatically vote you down for card clipping. I've done it before and am fine to do it again. Don't do it. I'll also report you to the tournament director, who will likely tell your coach. Thanks!
I don't flow cross-ex. If it's important, bring it up in a speech.
ACTUAL POLICY DEBATE
My LD prefs should generally apply here. I'm cool with Kritiks (on either side), but if it's a more niche arg I'm probably not up-to-date on the literature. I think condo bad is uber valid when you get to the 4+ area (I could be convinced of 3, depending on the round).
For the HS topic: I am not super up to date on this topic and don't plan to be. You don't have a topic-specific knowledge base to take for granted here.
MISC - MAYBE REFERENCE?
I'm updating this as debaters do things that frustrate/confuse me. Please do none of these things.
- I don't particularly love T/theory debates, so if this is your strat make sure you're explaining things really well. Like way more than you think you should.
-- On theory, I default to a fairness k2 education paradigm unless you tell me to do something else and give reasons why. Also try winning the fairness interp.
- I seriously don't get RVIs and don't like them. I think they're especially silly in a constructive (read: the 1AC). A debater asked me about an RVI in semi's at a tournament, I said I just literally didn't get it and the other judges concurred. At a different semi's, a debater lost because they went for a trivial RVI and the entire panel voted it down. Be the change. Don't do an RVI.
- Please don't read an identity k in front of me (while not being a member of that identity) and ALSO read a DA/link that your opponent is speaking for others by advocating X plan. This happens WAY too often and it's pretty ridiculous. Find a K and/or authors that don't make this yikes if you really want to go for it. Similarly, if your opponent does these shenanigans, I'm really open to the arg that they link and I should probably vote them down
Jerra Ferguson Paradigm
Casey Harlan Paradigm
Joseph Hutchings Paradigm
Navya Jammula Paradigm
I'm currently a high school senior and have debated all throughout high school. For the past four years, I have been a PF debater so I'm pretty familiar with all of the PF terms.
- Avoid spreading so I can catch all your arguments.
- I prefer you to keep your own time during speeches, but I will be timing too
- I'm going to be flowing your arguments and checking if they transition across the flow so make sure you address arguments that are dropped and arguments that should be flowed.
- Signposts before you start speaking, it makes my job MUCH easier.
- Standing or sitting during CX is up too you, but overpowering you opponents is not going to translate well.
- Speaker points are based on your speaking ability and your ability to present your arguments.
- If your evidence seems sketchy I WILL call for it.
Abhishek Kamath Paradigm
Ibshar Marnia Paradigm
Oliver Parker Paradigm
Experience: 2004 - Present - Speech and Debate director for Spain Park High School, Birmingham, AL
Events I Enjoy Coaching and Judging: Public Forum / Limited Lincoln Douglas / Most IE events
Major Concerns: If I call for a card and determine it is miscut, I will immediately drop your team. I will also report the violation to the tournament director and your coach or sponsor. All evidence should have a clearly defined DATE, author, and credentials. Sourcing on your card should be clear and wording of the text should not be altered. I should be quickly able to determine the veracity of the information presented in the round.
How I weigh PF: Standards should be clearly established. I find a framework at the top of the case useful. Please make an effort to argue your framework/standard. I will weigh all arguments based on the winning standard. Clearly compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to the framework. Deliver clear voters in the Final Focus. Usually, I only consider arguments cleanly extended through summary and final focus.
Kritiks/Counterplans/Theory in PF: Different tournaments have different rules on these matters. I will abide by the rules or philosophy in the tournament handbook. Public Forum should be accessible to a general audience. Please make certain that your arguments are comprehensible. If you feel like your opponent is running an argument which is unfair or against the rules, be prepared to define the violation and explain why to discount the argument in your rebuttal, summary, and final focus. If you are running these types of arguments, be prepared to establish why you are departing from the norms. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points.
Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.
Speaker Points: Your level of courtesy is my primary concern here. BUT ALSO - Dress professionally. Be self-aware of your posture and demeanor. Enunciate. Signpost your arguments/rebuttals. Each speech should have evidence of organization. Use all your time.
Kevin Pham Paradigm
***No prior debate experience (lay judge), however, been judging Individual Events and occasionally Public Forum for the past 4 years
- state your framework (if you have one) at the beginning of your debate
- when you state your contentions, make sure you state them clearly
- off-time roadmaps are helpful
- prefer no spreading, but keep in mind I can't flow towards you if I can't understand/hear you
- prefer you keep your own times
Ciara Pritschet Paradigm
1: In LD, the value and criterion is important, and should be relevant throughout the round
2: Speed is ineffective if I can't understand what is being said
3: Avoid an over-abundance of jargon.
Michael Quinn Paradigm
Abby Ronson Paradigm
I recently graduated from Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, AL. I debated at Vestavia in public forum for 4 years. I went to camp and competed locally and nationally. I’m flow. I did probably 5 Congress rounds in my entire career but I feel pretty confident in my abilities to judge it.
Here's my actual paradigm:
1. Weigh weigh weigh weigh
2. If you have claim then impact without warrants and link in between you do not in fact have an impact
3. If your evidence is miscut/power tagged/wrong the highest speaks I’ll give you is 25.
4. Time yourselves
5. I don’t require defense extension in first summary, only offense is required
6. If both teams agree to skip grand before the round, I’ll give everyone 2 extra speaks.
7. Collapse!!!! If you find yourself going for every argument in summary, you're doing this wrong. Everything in FF must also be in summary. This is true for both first and second FF.
8. Don't keep prep time for your opponents. I'll doc speaks it's a pet peeve I think it's rude
9. Roadmaps are always welcome
10. I’m good with speed but don’t spread PF is not the place for that lol
11. Framework debate is so boring plz don’t
12. If you're flight two, go ahead and flip for sides and order before the round, that way I have more time to give you feedback at the end
13. I don't require disclosure but I do appreciate it so you can add me to the e-mail chain if you feel so inclined/are not on the wiki
14. If your evidence is shady I will probably call for it. If I do call for evidence, cut card/website are both fine, but a paraphrased version of said evidence is not fine. Refer to #3
15. A 3 minute summary does not give you permission to go for all 800 arguments in the round. Spend more time weighing if you need to fill the time. Please continue to condense the round.
16. Honestly a ~saucy~ crossfire really doesn't bother me just don't be rude or degrading in cross and I won't doc your speaks
17. random but I don't shake hands I think it's gross lol
uhhhh nothing in particular just time yourselves lol
If the tournament doesn’t allow disclosure or if we’re running late and I don’t get to disclose/give feedback, feel free to post round me via e-mail or in person. Have fun y’all I love his activity don’t make me hate it after your round !
Ria Shah Paradigm
Eric Stout Paradigm
Shae Thomas Paradigm
I only have one suggestion: assume I know nothing. All of these topics are nuanced and if you assume I know all of the details and think I know what you’re talking about, you are sadly mistaken.
Srija Vem Paradigm
Hey! I have been debating on the high school level for 3 years, and I have done both LD and PF (but mostly PF). Make sure to speak clearly; I will be judging off of the flow, so if I cannot understand what you say, then it will likely not flow across. I am good with speed when talking, but make sure it is understandable. Also, BE POLITE during the round (especially cross), this will reflect in your speaker points.
I will always prefer warrant over a card. Give me the logic behind the argument, not just something like "Smith 2012 says climate change is good," because there is absolutely no logic behind the argument. If there is sketchy evidence during a round, I will be calling it, so just keep it clean. Make debate about argumentation NOT misconstruing evidence.
Constructives: make sure to have links in your contentions, speak clearly, and emphasize impacts.
Rebuttals: go down the flow, signpost, make sure to have good logic and support it with legit evidence.
Summary: WEIGH! impacts are incredibly important during a round. Make sure to extend your arguments, remember I am going off of the flow. Collapse -- if you try to go for every single argument in the round then that will serve to your detriment, so just take some prep and think about it: Which argument holds the most impacts, will win us the round, and was was left uncontested by the other team/has been a major part of the round.
Final Focus: show me why you have won, any new arguments/evidence will not be flowed. Make sure summary and final focus go hand in hand with each other.
Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions.
Madison Werkheiser Paradigm
Garrett Whitson Paradigm
Moriah Windus Paradigm
[I like to be included in the email chain, my email: email@example.com]
I'm currently a policy debater at Samford University and started debating as a novice my first year in college (2016). I qualified to the NDT for the 2017-2018 debate year.
I haven't judged on the high school topic too much this year, so please don't assume that I know all of the technical topic-specific terms.
I'm very much a "you do you" type of judge and want the debate to be what the debaters want it to be about, that said I do have some preferences:
For the Neg:
As a former 2N, I love disads, but I'm going to be skeptical of your ability to win the disad if your uniqueness and link work isn't done well throughout the entire debate. Impact calc is your best friend, in the 2nr I want you to write my ballot for me and tell me why your link chain is much more probable than your opponents and why your impact turns the case debate.
I'm not particularly persuaded by Aff claims that the CP should be textually competitive, and err on the side of functionally competitive. If the CP has multiple planks I want a clear explanation of how each one functions (or how they function together) at some point in the debate, so many debaters don't synthesis their CP planks to work together which ultimately ends up hurting them in the debate. As far as 50 states goes, the Aff is 100 % right! 50 state fiat isn't the most real world model of education, however, as a 2N I can definitely be persuaded by the arg that it's important to test federal vs. state action---just make sure that these arguments are well drawn out if the debate comes down to 50 states fiat.
3. K debate
All too often the alt isn't clearly explained. While I would definitely vote on "we prove the aff is bad even without the alt," you'd really have to be winning case turns arguments which ultimately makes more work for you. It's best to work with an alt that you are familiar with and can clearly explain with well-articulated links to the case. I try to interfere with the debate as little as possible, so even if I understand the literature base you're working with, I'm not going to do the work for you if you don't fully explain your arguments or develop them.
It's really important that you win your interpretation though explaining why it is comparatively better than the Aff's CI. It's a good practice to include a list of topical versions of the affirmative that the aff could easily have adopted. Also, I want to see good impact work done in the 2NR (what ground you lost, how they over or under limit etc & why those things matter).
Win the TVA debate and I'm 89% convinced you'll win my ballot. If there is a TVA that solves all your offense and gives the Aff the ability to debate the things that they want to debate, that's an easy neg ballot. BUT you need to do the work for me and do impact work in the 2NR that explains what ground you lost (and it needs to be more than "I couldn't run my econ da").
6. Final Tips
A) Clarity over speed
B) When the debate is too big in the 2NR, the neg will always lose
C) If the Aff reads add-ons in the 2AC, impact turn them and make the debate fun :)
D) 1NRs should be offensive not defensive, it's a strategic time to read lots of cards because the aff usually focuses more on the 2NC.
For the Aff:
1. For Policy Affs
A) Be topical, or be really good at debating topicality--I'm going to err neg in a debate that you're not winning the topicality debate. Persuasive counter interpretations are a good thing to have in your toolbox and explaining why your interpretation is comparatively better (for debate, for this round etc.) is a must.
B) Impact calc---write my ballot in the 2AR
2. For K Affs
I think that it is helpful for K aff's to be germane to the resolution, it makes it harder for the neg to win aspects of the FW debate (if it is a K vs policy debate) and increases the nuance level of the debate.
A few final things
1. Pronouns are very important, please be respectful and ask the other team their preferred pronouns before the debate starts and adhere to those throughout the debate.
2. Microaggression and rudeness will result in your speaker points being docked, please keep the debate civil and respectful.