Gig Harbor Invitational

2019 — Gig Harbor, WA/US

Turi Abbott Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Blynov Paradigm

TL;DR

Please run cases that took more effort to make than simply copy-pasting from the most recent briefs, ugh.

Stuff I like

Kritiks, Plans, Performance, Narratives (find me on Goodreads!), Creativity, Friendship.

Stuff I dont like

Spikes, theory (Run theory only if theres an actual reason to)

Misc

I give speaker points based on how organized you are; creativity is a plus, so is a sense of humor.

About me

My favorite stuff to run included Anarchy, irony, Biblical narration, space warfare, and poetry. Psychoanalysis is fun. Not familiar with postmodernism lol

Contact

Feel free to email me at Ld4DavidB@gmail.com

Jay Busch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mohammad Forouzanfar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Raylene Fowler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jim Gao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bitaniya Giday Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suzanne Hall Paradigm

I do not find spreading useful in making a strong case; I prefer traditional LD debate. Framework arguments must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution. Courtesy to your opponent matters. Cases with plans are fine — provided the resolution is fully addressed and you can engage your opponent on the nuances of the resolution.

Rosie Huang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ashley Jones Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Lily Kay Paradigm

I am a new parent judge. Please don't spread, and be sure to make your reasoning very clear; I will only vote on arguments that I could understand! Don't run anything progressive with me.

Le Le Tian Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan Lipour Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amy McCormick Paradigm

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

Alia Memon Paradigm

I did local circuit LD in Washington for three years during high school - I will vote based on the flow and there isn't anything that I won't vote for.

Things you should do: explicitly extend arguments into all speeches, impact calc, signpost, voters, be nice to your opponent

Speed: You can talk quickly but don't spread. I will say 'slow' if you are going too fast. Go slower on taglines.

Ks: Explain clearly - don't assume I know anything about the literature you're reading or what the jargon means

Blippy/frivolous theory/theory spikes: will vote on it but will give you low speaks so don't do this. Please don't read 1832892 one line underview args.

Kathy Meng Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jerry Munroe Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Newberg Paradigm

8 rounds

If you make outrageous claims, prove them

Tell me why I should vote you

lets keep the the debate PG

and as always, pop off

Ken Nichols Paradigm

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. (I'm not generally a fan of progressive arguments, but will consider them if the position can be debated without applying abusive burdens.) I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Makaylah Richardson Paradigm

The debate round is ultimately up to you guys, I have no preferences for traditional over progressive and vice versa. However, if you are taking the progressive route I’m fine with pretty much everything, K’s, Theory, DAs, CPs, etc. I can handle spreading until it gets to about an open policy level. My only real rule here is that I absolutely under no circumstances will tolerate any sort of ad hominem argument/overall meanness whatsoever, just be nice to each other please!

Dylan Rosenlind Paradigm

8 rounds

Open LD debater

Pretty comfortable with speed, just signpost and slow for tags and stuff

Know what you are running, dont run stuff you dont understand

Fine with most stuff

Kira Rosenlind Paradigm

pop off children

Please enunciate tho

Ellison Roycroft Paradigm

Debate Experience:

-2 years Lincoln Douglas participant in high school

-1 year Lincoln Douglas coach

-1 year British Parliamentary debate participant in college

Debate Philosophy:

I value tech>truth in almost every instance, but I'm unlikely to vote for positions that only take advantage of a debater who doesn't know how to respond to them.

I value creativity and ingenuity and I won't just drop a stock case for a novel one, but I will like the more creative one more. If we're honest, nobody is truly objective and the way to get me to like your side is to run a case that I will remember.

I'm flexible on the roll of the judge and ballot.

I don't really like T, but if you run it very well, I will vote on it.

If something is said/argued in round that is blatantly problematic, you will lose and get bad speaks.

In-Round Logistics:

I'm okay with flex prep, off-time road maps, and I do not count flashing as prep time. If there's an email chain, I would prefer to be included in it.

I'm okay with spreading up to about 400 wpm, and will say "clear" or "speed" if I can't understand.

I will keep time, but I don't want to be responsible for keeping you in time. If you go over time too much, I will dock you speaker points.

If a round boils down to evidence and isn't settled by the end of the 2AR, I will read and evaluate it myself before determining the ballot.

Thadeus Smith Paradigm

If you kick open the door and yell “how’s my favorite branch doing?” when you walk in the room, you'll get a speaks boost.

Go here and create a room so that I don't have to call for evidence after the round.

TL;DR

As a judge, it isn't my job to tell y'all how to debate, it's my job to vote the way you tell me to. I want you to tell me what matters most in the round and why you defend or solve for that better. You can run literally anything you want if it's going to get you there. If you have time, read all of my paradigm: Some stuff in LD will be applicable anywhere, and some stuff in PF will be applicable anywhere.

Background

I did debate all through middle and high school(PF, WS, & OO) and saw some success at the state and national level (10th at Nats in 2019). I'm now a Political Science/Women's & Gender Studies student at Pacific Lutheran University. I work as a debate coach and judge, write for a couple different brief companies, and work at summer camps for Capitol Debate. Because I'm so active in the community, I'm probably really familiar with the literature.

Speed

See the source image

Congress Philosophy

i hate congress

Public Forum Philosophy

I know when your time starts, please don't tell me, thanks.

Crystallization is extremely important. I really couldn't care less about flowing every single argument through past the rebuttal speech. I'd rather you explain the points of clash and voters and WHY they matter. Just saying "Hendrickson 16 solves" means nothing if you don't tell me why.

Because I put such a high emphasis on crystallization, I REALLY don't want to see the Summary and Final Focus be line-by-line rebuttals. It's totally fine to bring up a new argument or a new response in Summary, but only if you're crystallizing as well.

Fiat is a thing. Y'all aren't debating "will this thing happen," you're debating "should this thing happen." I will be a very hard sell for any anti-fiat arguments.

If I really truly don't know who's won, I'll first call for evidence. If it isn't structured like a card, or you don't show me the specific paragraph you cite, I won't consider it. If that doesn't make my decision, I'll presume for the team that defends the status quo.

Oh, and I don't flow cross-ex, so if they make a key concession, bring it up next speech.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy

For the love of God don't spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I can barely understand philosophy when it's written on paper, I'm not going to know what you're saying if you're going 500 words a minute. For theory, if it's a legitimate voting issue, you shouldn't need to get through it as quickly as possible.

I'll prefer tech over truth in most cases, unless it comes down to something that's blatantly false (if that's the case, it's probably an ethics violation and you'd lose anyway).

I don't have (or don't think I have) any biases on what types of arguments you should run except for the standard disagreements (don't bring up new arguments last speech, etc.). I love a good K debate but I'll admit that I'm not the most familiar with a lot of the lit, so try and explain the K and don't just rely on reading the card.

I think theory debates are good and should be promoted, but you shouldn't be running theory just to win the round - Only run it if there's a legitimate violation. I, as the judge, am the ultimate arbiter of what entails a "legitimate violation." That means if there's something like disclosure theory, only run it if you asked them to disclose and they didn't. Meta-theory is fine too.

Framework debates are awesome and I would prefer it if y'all hone in on that throughout the round. One of the best parts of LD is seeing how different philosophies engage with each other.

Condo's good, CP's are good (especially States CP), fiat's good

Paraphrasing's bad, rehighlighting's bad

Questions

PLEASE ask me questions about my RFD - Debate's an educational activity, and you don't learn if you don't ask questions.

RFDs

I'll always disclose and give a spoken RFD. If you have questions either walk with me after round or ask me to email you.

CONGRATULATIONS! YOU READ THE WHOLE PARADIGM! HERE IS A MEME FOR YOU!

Oliver Strachan Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amanda Swainston Paradigm

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Second year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case.

Matthew Tilden Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laila Tobias Paradigm

8 rounds

Show me:

- Framework clash/debate

- why I care

- if i cant understand you then it wont be flowed

Jagannathan Venkatesan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Enzhou Wang Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent judge from Interlake High School. I have judged at multiple tournaments before and have been trained in flowing. I do not disclose my decision after the round. To best adapt to me, you don't need to slow down specifically, but speaking clearly will be helpful. I value making logically compelling arguments and convincingly refuting opponents' weak contentions and points. Have a great debate!

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

--Leonardo DaVinci

Lisa Weber Paradigm

8 rounds

LD Paradigm

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination


Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.


Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Trevor Wyatt Paradigm

8 rounds

My Experience Comes Mainly In LD. - 2 Years as of 2020

Mostly truth over tech, though I will vote both ways

Basic Stuff: Don't Care Where Sit, Either Sit or Stand, whatever is preferred. Timing yourself is highly recommended. I give a few seconds grace but after that, I won't flow what you say. I vote primarily off of flow.

Speed is well, I don't really care. If you want to go fast, do so. If you are a slower debater, great go slow. However, if spreading please flash the case, otherwise, I probably won't be fast enough to flow arguments. To let me know you are going fast close your eyes and say "I am speed."

Argument Wise, I am really open to anything, but I do like a typical Value/Criterion debate. K's, DAs, T-shells, Plans, or whatever has to be explained well enough that I can understand. And if they just don't make sense I really will not vote on them. I have a high threshold for T, probably won't vote on it unless large. As for meme cases, run them but probably won't vote for them. I will give extra speaker points if you can prove to me you can juggle.

This is how I pick my Champion:

1. Pick the winning framework/whatever is best.

2. Weigh the impacts through the framework, whichever side has the largest/most impacts under the fw will win the round.

This is how LD rounds should be judged. Sorry if some parent judges don't understand that.

Tl:Dr

No outside bias

Speed doesn't care

Open to any argument, provided it is explained

Sachin Zachariah Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jing Zhang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yingye Zheng Paradigm

Not Submitted