Nick Eikelbrener ParadigmLast changed 11/12 6:37P EDT
My name is Nick and I debated for Princeton High School. I graduated in 2018 and Glenbrooks will be my first tournament judging on the 2018/19 season. If you need to contact me, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or message me on Facebook.
Short Version: read what you want, be clear, and don't exclude anybody.
I can flow most speeds as long as you’re clear, but if your top speed is slightly unclear, please slow it down a bit. If you consider yourself fast, starting at 50% and working your way up would be appreciated.
I don’t count flashing as prep, but please don’t steal prep. Flex prep is good but I won’t pay as close attention so if a question is important try to get my attention.
I have some defaults but these can all be changed as I try to be as tab as possible. I default to tech over truth, truth testing, drop the debater on T, drop the argument on theory, and no RVI's. Out-of-round arguments are OK generally, and I won't hack for it, but disclosure is a good norm. As soon as you take a stance on one of these issues, the default goes away.
Here’s some specifics:
Theory- I’m most comfortable judging theory debates, mainly because I had to judge more of them between Daniel Shahab and Daniel Lin than I can count. I’m fine with any shell, but if you find yourself considering something like font color theory, I can almost guarantee you there’s a better shell, and your speaks will reflect that (same goes for reading >4 shells). Explicit, extended weighing between standards is the best way to get my ballot on a theory debate. Anything from skep takes out theory to reading meta-meta theory is fine as long as you justify why you’re able to do that.
LARP/Policy Args- I'm a big fan of LARP cases because I feel like they avoid trying to mislead or trick your opponent, so if you've done your research, go for it. I won't knock you for reading the same generic util framework as everyone else. Please don't read a 2 minute plan/fw and then a 4 minute underview. Creative counterplans that solve the aff are cool, I'm fine with condo (unless you lose a theory debate on it), and any DA is fine as long as it has a structure. Perms need a net benefit. If you go top speed or are heavy on jargon, please have an overview or slower explanation of the overall story of your case to contextualize everything else.
K's- really broad category, but I'm a fan of most things that fall under it. As long as you set up an explicit ROB and have a link/impact/alt structure (or similar structure for aff K's), I'll follow it. It really helps if you delineate the sections while spreading (e.g. a quick pause between two different parts of the K).
I like to think I have a pretty fair background in the literature bases people draw from for LD K’s, but err on the side of caution. When it comes down to it, hopefully you do a good enough job explaining the K that my background doesn’t matter.
Performance- big fan. You do you, and if you want to win, give some kind of reasoning. You'll probably get high speaks regardless. The flipside is that I'll evaluate T-Framework, Cap, and other generics as responses. If you link some further reading on whatever topic you're addressing in the speech doc, I'll do my best to check it out.
Phil- my personal favorite type of debate, so if you’ve got creative philosophical approaches to the topic, please bring them. For reference, my favorite case I ever read was a Hegel AC on the 2018 Jan-Feb topic. That said, please go light on the jargon where possible. I’ve noticed a lot of cases centered around recent continental philosophy that have average word lengths around 9. Please don’t do that. But if you like Kant, Hobbes, Fanon, Aquinas, Butler, or anyone in between, I’d like to hear it.
Tricks- my least favorite type of debate, but I feel like it’s strategic, so I’ll vote for you all the same. I’ve got a very solid background in LD tricks, so I’ll catch the one sentence Resolved A-Priori you read in the middle of a paragraph if you emphasize the wording enough. I won’t read the speech doc to fish out each and every trick though, and if I miss it I won’t vote on it in a later speech. Truth testing and then a list of a prioris is fine, I feel like that’s as clean as tricks can get. My main gripe is people being asses in CX and while extending stuff. I really hate super elusive CX (what’s an a priori?) or debaters acting condescending to their opponents because they dropped a trick. If you debate tricks, just be upfront about what they are: cheap ways to get a ballot. That way, your speaks will be fine and I won’t be upset.
Don’t let anything else in this paradigm fool you- speaker points are assigned based entirely on laptop stickers (laptop stand stickers do not count)
If you extend a skep trigger or something to similar effect and fail to say “You activated my trap card” I will consider you a grimy tricks gremlin and assign speaks as such
I’ve only seem someone shout at full force in round once. I’d prefer if it wasn’t twice
If you can think of more than 5 responses to Sinhababu I’ll give you 0.1 speak per argument (counting the original 5).
If your opponent reads “all negative interps are counter-interps” and you read RVIs good, a bunch of theory, and then argue that they don’t get to add standards in later speeches to their “implicit interps” I will vote for you with a 30
If you begin the AC with “Welcome to Trump’s America” I expect you to say “Welcome back to Trump’s America” and “Welcome once again to Trump’s America” in the subsequent speeches to avoid confusion on where we are
Reciting (from memory) the entire intro to Avatar: The Last Airbender guarantees you at least a 28.9
I believe in you