John Landry Paradigm

Last changed 1/31 10:10A EDT

Policy Debate – Judge Paradigms

Framework – Framework is important. If you successfully frame the round toward Aff or Neg, it can help you win the round. My expectation is both teams must engage each other’s interpretations fully instead of reading and extending…if neither team suggests a standard for evaluation…I ALWAYS DEFAULT to the POLICY MAKER!


Case Debate – I believe smart analytics are preferable to SPEED (spread) reading Card after Card after Card. Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling.


DA/CPs – AS SPECIFIC as POSSIBLE, but I’m willing to vote either way. I prefer link-specific analysis, but I’m willing to vote either way as long as there is a clear impact/ net benefit to be preferred

Kritik Debate – I like to divert back to Case Debate when it comes to a debate that turns Kritik. It is important to me that the team evaluates why the K is the most important impact in the round, get out of the CARD READING, always be sure to extend them in later speeches…use your prep time…fully develop!! I think if the 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the Aff. I'm fine with kritik affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I’ll default to competing interpretations, but how I evaluate T should be the work done in the round. I think of standards/reasons to prefer as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means that comparative impact calculus is important for any 2NR going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s. That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary if you’re winning the standards debate, but it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.

Theory – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you should give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument.

Non-Traditional Debate – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do.

Speed/Spread – As long as you’re clear, and not out of breath… I’m fine with speed. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner. I believe Policy Debate should be Policy…not ATTACK debate! I also believe and will add points for respect. EVEN if the Aff/Neg is clearly more prepared/seasoned, the opponent can score high based on RESPECT.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R8 X255 X204 Neg Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R7 X259 X266 Aff Aff on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R5 X113 X109 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R4 X124 X221 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R3 X209 X199 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R2 X283 X149 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 CX R1 X212 X278 Neg Neg on a 2-0
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VCX R5 Coppell RB Greenhill MK Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VCX R3 Casady BB Airline AB Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VCX R1 Wichita East SR Trinity DH Aff