Madison Barker Paradigm

Last changed 2/3 5:10P EDT

Rounds on the topic: 12

Tournaments I’ve judged at (2018-2019):

Greenhill

Local Utah Tournaments

Affiliation: Rowland Hall

General Notes:

  1. Yes, I want to be on the email chain madisonbark@gmail.com
  2. Generally, I flow on paper.
  3. I will try my best throughout the debate to make a fair decision and treat both teams with respect. I will expect you all to do the same when it comes to talking to each other and talking to me.
  4. Prep should end when the email is sent.
  5. Don't be mean. It’s okay to explain why the other team messed up but I’m not persuaded by “that was the worst 1AR I’ve ever heard” type comments.
  6. Speak clearly and don’t spread through your blocks. If I can’t flow you then I can’t vote for your arguments.
  7. I prefer depth over breadth.
  8. In the 2AR and 2NR spend time on the things you want me to evaluate and vote on. Write my ballot for me in your 2AR/2NR.

General Arguments

1. K Affs – Need to have some type of advocacy

2. Performance – I’m not going to penalize a team for “dropping it” because there was no clear definition of what it meant.

3. Framework/T-USFG: My preferred strategy against K Affs along with one other argument that is a viable 2NR.

4. Kritiks – Should not morph into different kritiks after the 1NC. Advocacies can’t change in the middle of the debate. I will hold the 1NC to whatever their alternative was. I like new page overviews on the kritik. If it’s one off kritik help me figure out what you’re answering in the neg block, it isn’t as clear as you think.

5. Topicality – Tech over truth. Even if the aff might be reasonably topical I would rather vote on a team that explains why their interpretation is best for the topic.

6. Counterplans – I will judge kick them if you tell me to.

7. Specific Arguments I do not like. (As I judge more rounds I will add more to this list):

a. Agamben

b. Death Good

Substance

DA’s: My ideal 2NR against a policy aff is usually a DA or a CP and DA. Be tricky and smart about the arguments you make. Keep your evidence as updated as possible. Clearly explain the internal link, I’ve seen way too many politics debates where it’s like “republicans win the house and then extinction from nuclear war” and it’s just very unclear how we get there and I don’t like that.

CP’s: I’m sympathetic to CP theory but it’s kind of unlikely I’ll vote on it unless you spend some time there and it’s just conceded or if it is a blatantly “cheaty” cp. That being said I like tricky counterplans because I think it shows that you’ve really thought out your strategy against the affirmative.

Theory: I don’t really like theory that much but I will vote on it. I find international fiat theory and other things like that kind of annoying. I do not like things being made voters for no coherent reason whatsoever. Be judicial in the amount of theory you read and the things you make voting issues. I won’t vote for something super blippy if it’s at the top of the 2AR/2NR for one second. If you're going for theory I think you should go all in and commit to it as a strategy. I don't mind if you go for it especially if they dropped it because it makes my decision really easy but for me to vote on it you need to spend time on it.

Topicality: I like topicality. I’m willing to vote neg on T if they win the T debate regardless of whether or not the aff is logically topical. I really like T debates and I think that it’s one of the best parts about debating the topic. If you just want to throw t into the 1NC to make them answer it but have no intention of going for it that’s fine but if they scandalously under cover it just go for it. I hold a pretty firm line on no blatantly new answers in the 2AR, especially on T.

K Affs: I would prefer the aff have an advocacy statement. I'm not going to say that I'll never vote for an aff without an advocacy statement but based on my past record I am more sympathetic to framework. I have not historically been a huge fan of performances especially if they don't come with some substantive explanation of why the performance is necessary to your advocacy. The aff should not change significantly in the 2AC. I am much less likely to vote on framework if you clearly illustrate how your aff connects to the topic. Be tricky with framework. The key to winning a framework debate running a K Aff (to me) is adequately defending why the type of education you create is valuable.

Framework: I really like framework, I think one of the best parts about debate is debating how the game should be played. The amount I lean towards framework really depends on the execution of the affirmative. I am very sympathetic if the aff has no relation to the topic or if the aff is intentionally vague and changes throughout the debate in order to prevent you from meaningfully answering it. I am very persuaded by procedural fairness and TVA arguments.

K’s: I don’t know a lot about philosophy so if you want me to vote for you I need an explanation of your argument. I hate when kiritks become something blatantly different than the 1NC in the block. I prefer more concrete kritiks over postmodernism. Don't expect me to have any understanding of what you're saying if you don't explain it well. I hate giving an RFD where a team is clearly frustrated about not getting my ballot and the primary reason they didn't get it is because they got so lost in the jargon of whatever philosophy they were reading that they forgot to connect it to the debate.

Speaking Tips

1. Don't spread through blocks.

2. Speed is not the end all be all. It’s good to be fast but not good to be un-flowable. Good debaters are fast or clear, great debaters are fast and clear. Be both.

3. Organize your speeches. The easier you make it for me to understand how you see the debate the easier time I will have voting for you.

4. Points

a. 27 and below: I didn’t like something you did in the debate enough to dock your speaks for it. You did something offensive or mean. I will talk about it after the round, your coach might hear about it after the round. It may have caused you to lose the debate or just for me to be upset.

b. 27-28: your speaking style, clarity, or execution in the debate had significant issues.

c. 28-29: You spoke well and I expect you to do well in the tournament. There were some small issues but overall I think you are a good debater.

d. 29 and up: I expect you to break and or possibly win a speaker award. You killed it. I was impressed.

Other philosophies of people who influence my view on debate:

1. Mike Shackelford

2. Joey Amiel

3. David Walter Bernstein

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R4 SLC West BK West Campus ST Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R3 Damien BB Interlake CF Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R2 Greenhill EA CK McClatchy FS Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R1 Alpharetta HS BM Green Valley WK Aff
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R4 Skylin Christiansen & Tatarevic JuaDie Anaya & Brunisholz Neg
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R3 ProHal Werts & Seo Cyprus Oswald & Zarate Neg
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R2 Farmto Figlioli & Liddell LonPea Avondet & Lunsford Neg
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 CX R1 ProHal Wheeler & Medeiros Skylin Soter & Isabella Neg
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NPF R2 Kearns Goodman & Tapia SalHil Quesenberry & Pitts Neg
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NPF R2 Cyprus Loosle & Contreras WesHS Bargeron & Sorensen Neg
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NPF R1 Kearns Marteliz & Chavez Herrim Burchard & Hyte Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NPF R1 Jordan Clark & Faraji WesHS Whiteley & Shoell Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/13/2018 CX Octafi North Broward Prep DF Coppell RD Neg Neg on a 2-1
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/13/2018 CX R6 Dallas Highland Park ML Coppell RD Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/13/2018 CX R5 Glenbrook South VB Dowling Catholic TP Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/13/2018 CX R3 Guyer MI Wayzata LK Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic 9/13/2018 CX R2 Little Rock Central CW Notre Dame DP Neg
Copper Classic 1/12/2018 NCX Finals SLCWes Rice & Galian JuaDie Severo & Trujillo Aff Aff on a 3-0
Copper Classic 1/12/2018 OCX R6 SLC West GO Skyline SD Aff
Copper Classic 1/12/2018 OCX R3 Juan Diego Catholic AB Sky View PH Aff
Copper Classic 1/12/2018 OCX R2 Cyprus GH SLC West HO Neg
Damus Hollywood Invitational and USC Round Robin 11/2/2017 NCX Semis Salt Lake City West AS Polytechnic WH Aff Aff on a 3-0
Damus Hollywood Invitational and USC Round Robin 11/2/2017 NCX Qrtrs Polytechnic WH Head Royce KW Neg Aff on a 2-1
Damus Hollywood Invitational and USC Round Robin 11/2/2017 NCX Rd5 Polytechnic WH Peninsula FR Aff
Damus Hollywood Invitational and USC Round Robin 11/2/2017 NCX Rd3 Peninsula QW Head Royce KW Neg
Damus Hollywood Invitational and USC Round Robin 11/2/2017 NCX Rd1 Meadows JY Chaminade CP CC Aff