Brian Cai ParadigmLast changed 12/23 12:15A EST
Alpharetta HS 2016
Georgia Tech 2019 (Computer Science)
Every judge prefers in depth clash and high quality strategy.
Perhaps that is not the winning strategy, and I understand.
Make it interesting and fun, as I am not doing this for the money and it is very time consuming for me to judge you all.
This means that lots of argument and evidence comparison, in depth knowledge and explanations, and charisma during speeches and cross examinations will be rewarded.
Reading 8 off and copy-pasting blocks will net you a win if done correctly, but your speaks will probably not be impressive. They're called speaker points, not technicality and strategy points.
People have poor memories, so make sure everyone is able to keep a good flow. Also write my ballot with really good impact calculus at the top of the 2NR/2AR so I don't have to think. Thinking burns calories.
I will try to evaluate evidence in the lens that was specified by the speakers. All evidence is just a bunch of words some people wrote, so tell me what these events mean in the context of the round, who the author is or cites and why that is important, and how it interacts with your opponent's arguments and evidence. Even if it's something like "Healthcare Thumps" (I don't keep up with the docket anymore...) I want to know if it's a White House correspondent or a health insurance company watchdog and why it will take precedence over Trump's tariffs. If it's just an opinion piece that says "Republicans have talked about repealing the ACA", I won't evaluate it as good evidence unless you tell me to combine it with contexts, dates, etc and its comparison to the other side's evidence and arguments. If you spin it enough, I will accept garbage evidence (given the other team doesn't do as good of a job disputing it).
Death is bad. Learning is good.
Cheaters will be penalized.
I watched Iron Man one time