Jackson Hoffmann ParadigmLast changed 10/17 12:07P CDT
i debated for four years in high school and am in my fourth year debating at kansas - rock chalk
please add me to chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
please update your wikis. it won't affect my decision, but i will be really annoyed if you don't keep your wiki updated
tldr: do your thing and i'll listen. i will evaluate the arguments made in a debate as impartially as i can. good for policy v policy debates and clash debates. not great but not bad for a k v k debate
i have included my argumentative biases below. if you have questions that this paradigm doesn't answer, feel free to ask
i will not vote on an argument that i cannot coherently explain or that has been argued inconsistently. you have been warned.
absent clear judge instruction, impact calculus, evidence comparison, etc. (those three things are very important to me) you should not be surprised by some degree of judge intervention. in those instances where my intervention seems necessary, my decision will most likely be guided by evidence quality on the debate's most relevant issues. to avoid frustrating decisions that involve my intervention, write my ballot for me so i only have to minimally sort through the debate
i generally think affs should read a topical plan and am neg-biased in t debates vs affs that do not defend a topical plan. however, my voting record in those debates is pretty even. fairness is an impact
k: it will be difficult to convince me that debate is not at least a game, although it is not difficult to convince me that debate is also other things / has other important purposes. it will also be difficult to convince me that my ballot will have an impact on anything outside of the round i am judging
theory: i've become pretty impartial about it because i've started to enjoy theory debates much more, but it's nearly always a reason to reject the argument rather than the team
da: they're cool. big fan of politics. pls read good ev, bonus if you read lots of good ev
cp: they're cool. big fan of cleverly worded cp texts and cleverly worded perms. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the aff does not make an argument about it
clipping = auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it. if i recognize it, i will let the round finish but you will automatically lose with lowest speaks i am allowed to give
one last thing - an excerpt from Yao Yao Chen's paradigm that i think is really important:
"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."