Hope Sauceda Paradigm

Last changed Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:19 PM UTC

Hope Sauceda

Houston Urban Debate League

University of North Texas, Political Science & International Development,  2013 – 2016

University of Nevada Las Vegas, Communication Studies (present)

 

The TLDR:

As a coach and former debater, I have real issues with judge philosophies. I largely think that they are not reflective of how a judge thinks about debate, what a judge knows about debate and/or how a judge actually adjudicates a debate.

So, all in all don’t take any judge philosophy as a binding document or the holy grail for winning/losing a round. Ok, side note over.

I have been debating since my sophomore year in high school (so, since the 10-11 military/police presence topic). I am by far no “expert” in debate, but I have had a lot of experience coaching and teaching debate. I have had the experience of debating “traditionally” affirming topical policy affirmatives, multiple disads/cp combos and the occasional addition of the k/critical disad (capitalism). In my later college career, I moved towards a variety critical arguments untopical aff’s, soft left/right aff’s and 1-off K’s (anti-blackness mostly) and 2-off (“the K” & T or “the K” & DA). So, I have had experience with a wide variety of argumentation and argumentation styles.  I don’t think my debate background should limit you from running the arguments you choose; I strongly believe that debate is what you make of it and you should feel comfortable running whatever arguments you want. But, everybody needs to win arguments and, more so, reasons why those arguments mean I should vote for you (like what the impact/meaning to those arguments).

Prep time: I will keep a timer and record of prep time, as should you. Make is LOUD and CLEAR when you are beginning and ending prep. 

Evidence Sharing: Ummmm, its 2016, we have Gmail. If there is an internet connection use an email chain. If you use a flash drive, make it quick. I will assume that when you end prep you are ONLY saving. But, if I feel as though otherwise, I will verbally let you know.

Speaking:  At the bare minimum, you should be clear above all! I can’t flow if I don’t know what you are saying (obvi). Speed is cool just don’t let it tradeoff with clarity. Your analytical/tag speed should not be the same as your card speed. Use ethos, pathos and logos!

 

The Tea:

Speaker points:  *there are levels to this * Excellent speaker points means you can demonstrate a combination of smart, logical, proficient arguments. Excellent speakers have mic skills (some jokes, swagg, confidence, pettiness, facial expressions and eloquence). Excellent debaters have vison and an understanding about argument interaction. Excellent debaters will make a real arguement (claim - warrent). Excellent speakers will efficient and clear when explaining and deploying arguments. Excellent speakers will be clear and not trade speed for clarity. Excellent speakers will utilize various techniques (pauses, inflection, eye contact and rhythm) to enhance their overall performance.

Excellent – 29.1 – 29.5

Great – 28.8 – 29.1

Good – 28.5 – 28.8

Alright – 27 – 28.4

Bad – 0 – 26  (racism, misgendering, sexism, clipping…ect)

AFF –  My short tidbit for the aff.  It does not matter how you present your arguments but you should be held to solving for something (big or small). I think that resolutional or not there should be a purpose for why you presented a set of arguments and the meaning for said arguments. Aff’s should be clear in the CX of the 1AC – like I get it you’re not going to spill all the beans (why would you) but some spillage is necessary. I think in CX of the 1AC if they are asking specific questions about the aff you should respond accordingly. Too much vagueness and be perceived as a lack of knowing your case. I think that aff’s should utilize impacts and impact calculus as leverage against negative positions. Perms are your friend and solvency deficits are there to help you.

T/FW – now-a-days these seem to have blended into one. Be clear on your interpretations of words/definitions and models of debate. You need to explain what the consequences are a model/practice/definition in debate. I think you need an explanation about your views on “what debate should be/do” or “what definitions justify”. T/FW are about the larger educational frameworks that we should be engaging in. I think that the way we engage has large implications on education (on multiple levels).

*STAR THIS: I have not judged many rounds on this topic so, debating T/FW interps is a major key for scope 

Other notes on T/FW -The substantive portions of T/FW are better than the theoretical (i.e the K is cheating).

-On T, should probs talk about what the aff/neg research divide looks like under each interpretation.

-What aff’s exist/Don’t exist, what is competitive/viable, does something important get excluded?, educational benefits/disadvantages?

-Arguments such as limits and ground are internal links and not impacts.

-Largely think that competing interpretations and reasonability are equally subjective terms because they are both judge-decided

-On FW – perms are not a thing – I think these are just a combo of  a) we can co-exist/we don’t preclude b) sequencing args or c) reasons to prefer your interp/model

 

The K – Generally, you should not assume that I will unpack terms and concepts for you (Example: I will not “fill in” the meaning of unflinching paradigmatic analysis or historical materialistic analysis … you must explain it!). Don’t assume that buzz words are replacements for analysis and explanation (Example: uttering “cap is bad” or something was “anti-black” does not substitute for a contextual explanation of why that is true. For, the K link explanation is big for me. You should be explaining your links in the context of the aff/perm (always), and perms should always be explained in the context of the link scenarios. Don’t forget about your impacts and implications…that’s a major key. Alt solvency is preferable, minimally have an alt that can solve your links. Optimally, the alt would also solve some part of the aff too.  

 

K competition – so, I hear these terms/blubs such “competing methods” or “comparative methods” as they relate to perm/method evaluation. These terms mean very little without an explanation of WHAT the standards are and HOW the criteria function.

 

Perms – legitimate perms include all or some parts of the aff and some part of the alt/CP – I am not the one to go for “aff’s don’t get perms” you would be better off explaining why the perm does not function, why the perm is illegitimate and why there are disadvantages to the perm. The aff should do this as well (inversely – why the perm functions best, why its legitit and what the net benefits to the perm are + impacts)  

 

CP’s –First, I would prefer your counterplan to have a net benefits. I would prefer your counterplans to not link to the net benefit i.e most CP/politics debates (this combo is winnable no doubt) but, it grinds my gears. Second, I would like your CP’s to solve some part of the aff. CP’s kinda have too! Third, I prefer CP’s to be competitive. I am usually hesitant to vote on: Plan+ CP’s (assuming a legitimate perm), “Ban the Plan/Delay (esque) type CP’s. I have encountered super abstract CP’s (Wipeout & Anarchy) and they should be avoided. Other general comments: PIK’s are fine, multiple planks are fine, advantage CP’s are cool (note: specificity > generic toolbox), Intn’l/Agent CP’s are fine too.

DA’s – these are good like who doesn’t like a good DA + case combo. But, I am stickler for specific link explanation. With a generic piece of evidence, you can still contextualize your links to the aff. I think for disads impact calculus and a link story has gotten lost. I think these should be clear parts of the debate.

 

On politics, I don’t think this is a real disad! But, I still ran it, debated it and voted for it as such. I think there are lots of logical issues with politics disad that people don’t capitalize on they simply pull out there 5 – 9 card PTX block instead of making some of the “real world” arguments. For me politics is all about the uniqueness and the uniqueness of the link. Please try to read good evidence. If your cards are less than 10 words highlighted, we will probs have an issue. If you cards don’t have warrants you will probs be in a bad spot. 

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Event Rd Aff Neg Decision
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol 1 College Prep JT Northwood Independent LL AFF College Prep JT
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol 2 College Prep BS Green Valley SW AFF College Prep BS
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol 3 Polytechnic MG McQueen CR NEG McQueen CR
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol 4 Woodward PS S.Eugene H.S LS NEG S.Eugene H.S LS
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol 5 College Prep RD Salt Lake City West GR AFF College Prep RD
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol 6 East PJ Salt Lake City West GB NEG Salt Lake City West GB
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Open 1 Concordia SG Texas SW NEG Texas SW
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Open 2 Iowa CM Towson UG NEG Towson UG
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Open 5 Binghamton YM Stanford HP AFF Binghamton YM
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 JV 6 Arizona State GS San Francisco State BB AFF Arizona State GS
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Open 7 Iowa RW Binghamton MA NEG Binghamton MA
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Nov Semifinals Weber State FJ Arizona State KS AFF Weber State FJ
Weber State FJ on a 2-1
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Nov Finals Arizona State MF Weber State FJ NEG Weber State FJ
Weber State FJ on a 2-1
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Open Sems Iowa NO UC Berkeley OP AFF Iowa NO
UC Berkeley OP on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX 1 Milpitas BP Pine Crest Preparatory PR NEG Pine Crest Preparatory PR
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX 2 Bellarmine RC Denverlake Independent RL NEG Denverlake Independent RL
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX 3 West BA Skyline (Oakland, CA) AH NEG Skyline (Oakland, CA) AH
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 NCX 4 La Costa Canyon MM Harker DS AFF La Costa Canyon MM
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 NCX 5 Rowland Hall-St. Mark's CD Hillcrest OH NEG Hillcrest OH
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 NCX Quarters West BG Green Valley SL AFF West BG
West BG on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 NCX Semis Rowland Hall-St. Mark's AG West KB AFF Rowland Hall-St. Mark's AG
West KB on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 PF Semis Harker Xu & Raghib Mission San Jose Gupta & Maunder PRO Harker Xu & Raghib
Harker Xu & Raghib on a 2-1
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN 1 Kansas HW George Mason BH NEG George Mason BH
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN 2 West Georgia MJ Kentucky BT NEG Kentucky BT
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN 3 Emory FR Weber State HR NEG Weber State HR
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN 4 Emory FL Towson BG AFF Emory FL
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN 5 UVM HB Harvard MT NEG Harvard MT
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN 6 West Georgia CC Washington TT AFF West Georgia CC
Kathryn Klassic Winter Debate Tournament at CSU Fullerton 1/7/2017 OPEN Doubles Kansas BC Missouri - Kansas City AT NEG Missouri - Kansas City AT
Missouri - Kansas City AT on a 2-1
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var 1 Kansas FK Wake Forest AS NEG Wake Forest AS
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var 2 Southwestern CC Indiana HF NEG Indiana HF
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var 3 Louisville PT Binghamton MD AFF Louisville PT
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var 4 CSU Northridge AR San Francisco State HG NEG San Francisco State HG
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var 5 Rutgers-Newark NM Emory FL AFF Rutgers-Newark NM
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var 6 Missouri - Kansas City AT Emory GK NEG Emory GK
The Meadows Invitational 10/28/2016 Pol 1 Nevada Union MA Green Valley AS AFF Nevada Union MA
The Meadows Invitational 10/28/2016 Pol 2 Highland Park (Dallas) CM Greenhill SK NEG Greenhill SK
The Meadows Invitational 10/28/2016 Pol 3 Interlake LL Harker OB AFF Interlake LL
The Meadows Invitational 10/28/2016 Pol 4 St. Vincent De Paul HP Rowland Hall-St. Mark's PM AFF St. Vincent De Paul HP
The Meadows Invitational 10/28/2016 Pol 5 Rosemont DJ Damien GB NEG Damien GB
The Meadows Invitational 10/28/2016 Pol 6 College Prep PW CK McClatchy NM NEG CK McClatchy NM
Arizona Debate Institute 8/8/2015 ADI 1 Pointer DH Pointer BR NEG Pointer BR
Arizona Debate Institute 8/8/2015 ADI 2 Pointer BR Pointer CJ AFF Pointer BR
Arizona Debate Institute 8/8/2015 ADI 4 Pointer GJ Doty AOB AFF Pointer GJ
Arizona Debate Institute 8/8/2015 ADI 6 Dunn SM Pointer CB AFF Dunn SM
Arizona Debate Institute 8/8/2015 ADI 7 Dunn PS Dunn GV AFF Dunn PS
Dunn PS on a 5-0