Tanner Lewis Paradigm

Last changed 22 January 2016 2:24 PM EDT

Experience: Debated nationally at Pace Academy. First-Year student at Emory. 2A.

General: My ideal debater shows interest in the round, speaks clearly, treats opponents and partners respectfully, reads specific strategies, frames the debate as a whole and impacts individual arguments, and knows their evidence. I care much more about how you debate than which arguments you read. However, I am human, so I do have some biases, which I will explain in the following sections. I try to keep a good flow but expect you to clearly flag important arguments that you don't want to risk me missing. 

Evidence: Your evidence can only hurt you. This means that I will only evaluate warrants and explanation you have given in a speech, not default to better evidence despite worse debating. On the other hand, if you make a claim that seems to require evidence to back it up, I will ignore your spin if your evidence quality is poor. I will only look at unhighlighted parts of evidence if the opponent brings it up.

DAs: I don't understand "link controls uniqueness" or vice versa. There can be zero risk of the DA (I am also more likely than most to vote neg on presumption). The politics DA is silly, though I will not hesitate to vote for it if the aff doesn't debate it well.

CPs: I weigh the CP against the status quo, not the aff. My default is that perms are a test of competition, but I can be convinced otherwise. 

Ks (Neg): I don't think I am bad for the K, but I do hold neg explanation to a high standard. I generally default toward the neg getting to read their K but the aff getting to weigh the effects of the plan. However, the critique can definitely bring the aff's solvency and predictions into question. I think most reps and epistemology Ks are repackaged case defense. You can fix this by impacting your specific links. Explain why what the aff said/why their specific scholarship was bad. "The aff securitized China which causes endless violence" is insufficient. Affs should either impact turn the K or attack alt solvency.

Ks (Aff) and T-USFG: You should have some relation to the topic. The closer to a resolutional US policy action, the more likely I am to vote against T. The aff should demonstrate that it is predictable, generates good neg ground, and is incompatible with the "T version." Debated evenly by both sides, I am not super persuaded by fairness bad, productivity bad, or predictability bad. The aff's best bet is winning their education outweighs a marginal loss in fairness. The neg will have an easier time defending fairness and argument testing than decisionmaking or other skills impacts

T: I'm kinda weird about T. Personally, I think the only thing that matters is the predictability of each side's definition. If the aff has the more predictable definition or neither side has a predictable definition, the aff wins. Otherwise the neg wins. Reasonability only makes sense if it is a claim that the aff's definition is approximately as predictable as the neg's. Obviously, this is not the norm, so I am happy to judge a typical limits/ground/topic education T debate as well. Just know that I am easily persuaded by "predictability turn x impact" arguments.

Theory:

General: Explain it well starting in earlier speeches. Slow down on your theory blocks. 

Conditionality- I lean neg. I don't see much of a problem with conditionality or even multiple conditional options. I am much more likely to vote aff if the aff can explain and impact an in-round contradiction or strategy skew that made the debate illogical or severely harmed the aff's ability to garner offense.

Process/agent/international/states- I lean heavily aff.

PICs- I evaluate competition based on the plan text. I am more likely to change my mind if the neg convinces me that the aff's plan is unfairly vague, the aff is too shifty, or the aff's solvency advocate clearly advocates something distinct from the CP.

Intrinsicness- Easier for the aff to win on CPs than DAs. I'm generally sceptical of intrinsicness unless the neg reads a CP that competes artificially or a net benefit that doesn't link to the plan.

Random things I don't like:

Death good- I'll vote for it if you outdebate the other team, but I find their arguments very persuasive. This includes dedev.

Making debates personal- If you like to win by attacking your opponents' character or discussing their activities outside the round, you should not pref me.

Prompting partners/taking over their cross-ex- It's okay every now and then, but if it gets excessive I will hurt both of your speaks.

Saying "they conceded" when they didn't- Self-explanatory.

Try or die without aff solvency- You can definitely win this framing, but you need a coherent explanation of how the aff may solve. If you say "an asteroid is coming so you might as well vote aff," you are probably not in a great position to win.

 

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL ADW Glenbrook North JT Baltimore City ID Aff Aff 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R6 Alpharetta WC Greenhill KS Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R5 Westminster Schools CB Johns Creek TV Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R4 Law Magnet GT Woodward BP Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools MS 2016-01-29 PEL R3 Blake NW Iowa City WZ Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R2 Law Magnet GJ Woodward AH Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R1 Alpharetta KK Westminster Schools DH Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP Quarte Milton Hackman & Hoover Johns Creek Deng & Logan Neg Neg 2-1
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP Octafi Westminster Schools Brannen & Carithers Johns Creek Buck & Tang Neg Neg 3-0
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP R5 Alpharetta Cai & Mittal Marist Adair & Vance Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP R4 University School of Nashville Babat & Wolfson Johns Creek Bodea & Weintraub Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP R3 University School of Nashville Bradshaw & Gilliland Paideia Albright & Rojas Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP R2 Wheeler Agee & Pokowitz Alpharetta Kim & Gokare Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic HS 2015-09-25 VP R1 Woodward Abdullah & Srinivasan Johns Creek Ausburn & Wang Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2015-09-04 Var R6 Johns Creek MW Marist AV Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2015-09-04 Var R5 Marist ES Wheeler AF Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2015-09-04 Var R4 Alpharetta KK Chattahoochee MZ Neg
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2015-09-04 Var R2 Chattahoochee XR Westminster Schools ZB Neg
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2015-09-04 Var R1 Johns Creek OW Marist RZ Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 2015-07-28 CX R7 Hybrid Carty & Jacobs Hybrid Hughes & Shukla Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 2015-07-28 CX R6 BHL Haran & Singh BEPST Tambe & Wang Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 2015-07-28 CX R5 BDRS Haberman & Jablonski BDRS Cho & Hickey Aff
SDI 4 Week Tournament 2015-07-28 CX R4 BDRS Blocker & Hellie HRS Garrett & Soczynski Aff
SDI 4 Week Tournament 2015-07-28 CX R3 GMSS Mei & Nail GMSS Karuturi & Shen Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 2015-07-28 CX R2 HRS Pimentel & Testore BEPST Cozad & Williams Neg
SDI 4 Week Mini Tournament 2015-07-18 CX Round BEPST Barov & Abramson HRS Spizarny & Haskins Aff
SDI 4 Week Mini Tournament 2015-07-18 CX Round BDRS Pearson & Herrell BHL Berlin & Harrington Neg
SDI 4 Week Mini Tournament 2015-07-18 CX Round BDRS Daftari & Greene HRS Pimentel & Testore Neg