thomas Vance Paradigm

Last changed 2/11 9:11A EDT

TLDR : Plans or GTFO


Please Don't:
Be Rude or aggressive towards me, your opponent or your partner

Please Do:
Read a plan
Defend a course of action
Defend your consequences
Have a competitive methodology

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan. I like good debate, I've been blessed to coach and listen to great debaters in the past few years. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (doesn't matter if its the K, impact turns or a DA). I don't like to read a ton of evidence and I usually make decisions pretty quick. I do this because I feel like I can see the nexus question of the debate pretty clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:

Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for racism, gender, Lacan, baudrillard etc (that shit cray). I tend to find case specific Ks the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. "I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right" -Hemanth Sanjeev (I totally agree with this wise wise 12 year old.) Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is racist, sexist, homophobic or ablest. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. I will listen (and most likely vote) on CPs done in either the 1NC or the 2NC. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I usually view it in an offense/defense type framework but I'm also compelled by reasonability. I think competing interpretations are good but do think that some aff's are reasonably topical. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Probably Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough on the HS level and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Semis Montgomery Bell BH Niles North LI Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 NCX Octos Casady WH Little Rock Central LA Aff Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R7 Glenbrook North BaCh Northside OP Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R6 Glenbrook North BC Edgemont SS Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R5 Montgomery Bell HR Alpharetta HS BM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R4 Wayzata Independent HR Carrollton Sacred Heart DP Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R3 Niles West FW Maine East PP Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R2 Montgomery Bell KS Iowa City CW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R1 Glenbrook North JK New Trier LR Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R7 Classic FH/MP Classic BO YX Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R5 Classic FH/FFGSV Classic BO DR Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R4 Wayzata HR K Lab BS Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R3 HJPPV HS Barstow DT Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R2 Classic MP JS FFGSV PS Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R1 CPPWW NP K Lab FG Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 NCX Finals Westminster YL South HS - Minneapolis CJ Aff Neg on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX Octos Glenbrook North FF Gulliver Prep GP Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX Double Isidore Newman AL Montgomery Bell RH Neg Neg on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R7 Iowa City West KT Montgomery Bell RH Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R6 New Trier BB Westminster FP Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R5 Niles West BC Niles North WI Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R4 St. Ignatius CP CD Montgomery Bell BG Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R3 Iowa City West ES Glenbrook South KB Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R2 Solorio CC Glenbrook North NN Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R1 Glenbrook North KR Gulliver Prep GP Neg
GFCA First and Second Year State Championships 2/11/2017 NCX R3 Henry W. Grady NW Chattahoochee AA Neg
GFCA First and Second Year State Championships 2/11/2017 NCX R2 Westminster PI Calhoun GT Aff
Marist Scrimmage Series 2 10/20/2016 NCX R1 Riverwood PJ Marist BL Neg Neg on a 2-0
Marist Scrimmage Series 1 9/29/2016 NCX R1 Cambridge CK Riverwood PM Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/18/2016 CX1 Round Georgetown Day Bhagat & Cuneo Little Rock Central Cunningham & Cunningham Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/18/2016 CX1 Round Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart Stott & Ortega Westminster Schools-Atlanta Rosenblath & Mohan Aff
Marist Scrimmage Series 1 11/5/2015 NCXP R2 Mount Vernon JM Alpharetta NW Neg
Marist Scrimmage Series 1 11/5/2015 NCXP R1 Paideia PT Alpharetta UD Neg