Jenks Classic

2019 — Jenks, OK/US

Kathryn Aung Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Haley Aziere Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brooke Beirute Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Anna Boals Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jerry Broomhall Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Rylee Buchert Paradigm

8 rounds

Rylee Buchert

- Graduated Jenks HS in 2019.

- Assistant Coach at Jenks.

- Qualified to the TOC twice and took 9th/3rd at NSDA my Junior and Senior years.

Top Line Stuff

- Add me to the chain: ryleebuchert@gmail.com

- Evidence quality matters a lot to me, I will reward you if you correctly assert that your cards are good.

- Do evidence comparison, it's the best way to boost your speaker points with me.

- Don't assert something was dropped if it wasn't.

Arms Sales Topic

- I'm pretty familiar with this topic and have cut some stuff for Jenks, just don't spit out a ton of acronyms without telling me what they mean first.

DA

- Love them.

- Do turns case and impact calc (It's the easiest way to win a DA).

CP

- Love these more.

- Re-cutting aff cards as CP's is awesome, do that if you have time.

- I will default to judge kick unless otherwise told.

Impact Turns

- Also love these.

- Good cards are a must.

- If you're going to read spark (Or similar impact turns) I'm probably not the best judge for you.

Theory

- Aside from condo, most theory args are a reason to reject the arg not the team.

- Condo is good (I will not likely vote for it unless it's dropped). I had 1NCs with 4+ condo off, I don't really care if you have 50 CP's/K's in the 1NC. (Updating this as I voted for Condo bad in a round - I will not vote for this unless the neg severely mishandles it, please don't).

- Please slow down on theory, if you spread through a chunk of text, I will only vote on what I get down.

- If your theory shells in the 2AC are one line long, chances are I won't vote for them.

T

- I think most teams spend too much time explaining the impact to things like limits/ground and not enough on the internal links. Especially on this topic, I would like to see teams really flesh out the specifics on why the aff's interpretation is bad and not just rant about limits and ground being important.

- If you extend T, I would prefer it be a full extension, not just a blippy one minute time skew.

- Competing Interps > Reasonability.

K

- Didn't go for many K's in high school but have enjoyed judging these rounds a lot.

- I am most likely not familiar with any lit base outside of Cap/Security, so please don't spread through a three minute overview without explaining things.

- Be specific on the links and relate them to the aff.

- I will probably let the aff weigh their case against the K unless they really mess up the theory debate.

- If your arguments are death good or debate bad, don't pref me.

FW

- I think that all Affs should be connected to the topic in some way.

- I think impacts like topic education and others of the sort can be very persuasive if framed the correct way.

- This is the one argument where a long overview is acceptable to me in the 2NC, as long as it frames the ballot well and lays out the impacts you're going for.

- I wouldn't extend every impact in the block/2NR but instead collapse down and explain.

Johsua Cooper Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joshua Cooper Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Michael Haskins Paradigm

I'm the Program Director for the Tulsa Debate League. I coach all events but my focus is policy debate. I'm open to all styles of debate and I try to minimize judge intervention in my decisions. With that in mind, I’m more concerned with argument form than argument content. Arguments can come in many forms (e.g., traditional policy arguments, kritikal arguments, narrative arguments, etc.) but I think all arguments should have warrants and impacts. I also think line-by-line and clash help me minimize judge intervention. If your debate style eschews line-by-line, that's okay, but the clash should still be present, even if it's implicit. Ultimately though, I will do my best to evaluate your round according to the terms you establish in the round. With all that said, the rest of this paradigm covers a few technical aspects of debate that I consider important.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech Docs

Please include me in the email chain: michael.haskins@tulsadebate.org

Flowing

I will flow where you tell me to flow. If you don’t tell me where to flow, I will flow in the way that makes the most sense to me. I'm hesitant to cross-apply for you so sign-posting and explicit cross-applications are important.

Evidence

I prefer fewer pieces of evidence better explained and better applied than many pieces of evidence poorly explained and poorly applied. I think the debate community as a whole has done a poor job of teaching debaters how to evaluate competing evidence. Credentials and expert status hold less sway in my mind than the empirical and logical analysis contained in the evidence. On that note, I tend to give more weight to analytical arguments that use common knowledge examples and reasoned analysis than most judges. I consider this an important check against teams that run intentionally obscure offense on the hope that the other team will lack the evidence to respond.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to ask me questions. I love to talk debate.

Caroline Kizziar Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Rajveer Korpe Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

James Lawson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tristan Loveless Paradigm

Not Submitted

Patrick Miller Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Edward Perry Paradigm

Not Submitted

Autumn Rose Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Joshua Tacha Paradigm

Not Submitted

Salma Waheed Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Matthew Watts Paradigm

Not Submitted

Savannah Whalen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Victor Zhu Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted