Parker Mitchell ParadigmLast changed 9/25 3:59P CDT
Parker Mitchell Updated for: WaRu 2020
He/They/She are all fine.
Plz don't shake my hand
Yes email chain, no flash chain
Equal chances on framework
Fairness is an impact but not the only impact.
Competing interps are best
There is NOT "always a risk"
I flow cx
Speed is good (except when accessibility/disability concerns)
Postround if you want
I have now judged about 10 online policy rounds. They mostly went well. I have had little issues flowing speed, but debaters who are borderline in terms of clarity have their issues compounded. You should make a note of the ability of your microphone and speed of your internet connection when you assess how fast you want to go. It's difficult to unmute and say clear during flowing, so be cognizant: If you're unclear, I simply will not be able to flow you and have no way of warning you.
My preference is camera on. I don't read along with docs during speeches and reading the lips of debaters helps with clarity. This is simply a preference: if you calculate that your internet/sound setup will interfere more with clarity if your camera is on, I have no objection to your decision.
Sidenote: testing a dual screen setup for online judging. This won't need any adaptations from you but it may sometimes look as if i'm looking past the camera or to the side during cx due to the way my screens are setup. I am still paying attention. This note is less relevant for BVSW as I just broke my HDMI cable while setting up :(
Debate is a game, I'm open to almost* any of strategy that will help you win that game. My ballot will probably decide whether the proposition of the affirmative is better than the proposition of the negative.
*exceptions: blatant/unapologetic racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism. I have only used this exception once because someone was defending George Zimmerman.
TOPIC SPECIFIC NOTE
This topic is more aff leaning than i expected, a couple theories why that can help your strategy:
1) Many disads on this topic lack external impacts (containment/appeasement etc.) Affs are often set up to beat these strategies, so Negs need to be trickier. T is a better option than you think, as are tricky or "cheating" CPs. Create offense.
2) In K debates, the negative has shied away from being hardline on framework. Framework is harder when the negative is afraid of their best offense. Win an impact and worry less about trying to accommodate the aff. Again, create offense. Same for the aff: worry less about the middle and more about your offense.
4 years of debate for Shawnee Mission East high school in Kansas, 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Currently assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East (5 years), occasionally assist for the Asian Debate League (ADL). Also worked with DKC and Turner HS.
Topic Experience (HS): 0 rounds on the CJR topic, I did not coach at a camp this year so I might be behind on specifics, acronyms and community norms on the topic.
Topic Experience (College): 0 rounds on the Alliance topic. I don't actively coach for a college team so I might be behind on specifics, acronyms and community norms on the topic.
T: Often an underrated strategic option. RVIs are bad, but I'm open to impact turns from K affs. Both sides should have an interp. I (almost always) evaluate under competing interpretations. I (almost never) consider precision separately from limits and ground debates, it strikes me closer to an impact framing argument than an impact or internal link in and of itself.
CPs: "Cheating" CPs are "fine", win theoretical justifications+substance and you will win, probably not going to reject the team.
Statuses: I lean that Condo is good, dispo/uncondo is bad. Status theory is winnable, you need an interp and remember to ask. (n-x) interps are unpersuasive.
DAs: I've sat against the negative in a couple close debates with DA/Case strategies. I have difficulty assigning "minute risk" on disads if defense is persuasive and/or conceded. Winning requires a clean 2nr or significant defense.
Ks: The neg can critique both plan and non-plan parts of the aff. The aff can weigh itself. Work out nuances. I think I have a pretty good, but not universal, grasp on most critical literature in debate.
K Affs: They can be good. Framework can also be a good strategy against them. I find framework debates to be extremely interesting, although they make my hand hurt afterwards. I usually take a lot of time deciding in both Framework debates and K aff vs K debates because they tend to have a lot of nuance and/or moving parts.
Flowing: One sheet in the 1nc will remain that way. Each individual sheet will be straight down, overviews not separate. Preferably don't give sub-orders before the speech ("I'm doing framework, interp first, then tva, limits da..." etc), they confuse me/are irrelevant because I am flowing straight down.
Speed: Speed is generally good. Maintain clarity. I may "clear" you a few times. I should hear the full body of the card, I want to listen to every word, you shouldn't be able to get away with slurring during the body.
CX: I flow cross-x. It's binding. Open > Closed. Won't pay attention to "flex prep." Try to ask all of your questions during CX because I can't hold the other side accountable during "flex prep."
Language: The use of racial/sexist/homophobic/transphobic slurs, in any way other than as used by individuals who are affected by those slurs, results in 0 speaks and a loss. Be mindful of problematic (non-slur) language. Mistakes happen, but so must sincere apologies.
Postrounding: you are welcome to.
Ethics: Ethics challenges stop the round immediately and require proof. If the accused party did violate a legitimate challenge they will receive the loss and 0 speaks, the reverse is true if the challenge is illegitimate. Clipping is definitively a violation. I will surrender to tournament regulations.
Disclosure: I will orally disclose provided the tournament allows it. Please disclose pre-debate. It's good.
Prep: Flashing is not prep.
Speaks: I use CDR's points rubric, adjusting for estimated pool skill.
APPENDICES (LD/PFD paradigm see top)
I have limited LD experience, I debated it for a couple of years in KS and went to NSDA nationals.
Traditional LD makes little sense to me. I really don't get Value/Criterion, they simply read as impact framing args to me, so you should probably treat them as such. I'm more attracted to LARP/Phil and the wild west of progressive LD than traditional LD as these are more familiar to me.
Speed, Ks, plans are fine, LD theory is intriguing but somewhat new to me. Please, roadmap and signpost I will flow.
Default to deciding whether the resolution is true or good unless presented with different ballot framing. Get creative: i find many LD topics are one sided and dull when played traditionally. T really can help out here.
I get a bit lost in this event. I will evaluate the debate technically using an offense defense paradigm unless persuaded otherwise. I will attempt to flow on two sheets (AC/NC). Your case should include offensive reasons to vote for your side, not just defense.
All debate events require clash or they are just oratory: That means whichever team goes second should explicitly answer the other team's case. The second round of speeches need to both extend arguments and answer opponents. Final speeches should include a brief overview with ballot instruction and also continue LBL work. Do not eschew clash for the sake of speaking pretty, that is a quick way to lose my ballot.