Sam Franz Paradigm

Last changed 10/12 3:39P EDT

University of Michigan '20

Traverse City Central '17

samhughfranz@gmail.com

Affiliation: Walter Payton

I'm a student at the University of Michigan, and I debate with Harrison Hall there. I study history (of science) and German.

-I like specific, nuanced, and technical debates. I'll try to leave my argumentative predispositions and preferences out of judging.

-Truths are settled by the arguments made in a debate. I'll vote on anything, provided that it is substantiated. Everything is permitted. I'd prefer to see people answer what are thought to be bad arguments rather than telling me that they are bad.

-I judged debates at the Michigan debate camp this summer, so I have some familiarity with the high school topic. The only time where you may need to fill in some topic details is in T debates. By the way, I think I'm pretty good in T debates, provided the negative has a limiting interpretation that isn't an absolute mischaracterization of the topic literature. Teams that explain the virtues of a reasonably limited topic grounded in the literature will usually win in front of me. This usually means answering the question of limits in the abstract versus what one can reasonably expect based on popular literature about the topic.

-Judge direction is important. I often find myself confused by what debaters want me to do with arguments that are won after debates. This doesn't mean that you have to explain the obvious. What this means is that, for example, debates that involve complicated counterplans and disadvantages or complex internal link turns often require a great deal of judge intervention because it's not obvious what some claims mean given everything else that is happening in a debate. Teams should insert phrases like "even if" or "if we win X, that means we win Y" in their speeches if they view some issue differently than what someone could reasonably deduce from a set of claims.

-Strong, definitive, and specific contextualization of link arguments (for a disadvantage, critique, or whatever) will both boost speaker points and increase the persuasiveness of your argument. I especially enjoy watching teams read lines from evidence, quote the opposing team in their speech, etc. in order to give force to an argument. This is especially true in the case of K arguments that rely on links about discursive representations, epistemological assumptions, etc.

-I sometimes read cards during debates, and usually, I prefer a document after the debate so I can easily reference cards that are important in the last speeches. Evidence quality is important, and reading a couple strong pieces of evidence on a particular question can usually overcome a substantial difference in quantity of cards read, provided that teams debate about evidence equally.

-I don't think that I have a very strong slant in framework debates. I generally prefer judges who don't have strong ideological presumptions, so I'll try to keep mine out of the debate. I like framework debates when both sides pick a narrow set of offense that is explained well in relation to the other team's arguments. Pick and choose in the final speeches. Often, framework debates lack good impact calculus which makes it hard to decide without considerable intervention. I've read for framework this year, but it's also been read against me.

Teams reading K affs, in my experience, should defend either a model of debate that has benefits in terms of how debaters interact with and think about the world, or a set of arguments about why imposing a particular and limited interpretation of the resolution is bad. Teams that win framework debates in front of me often do both of these things. In order to do this persuasively, teams should explain why competition is an important component of their (new) model of debate. Obviously, I'm interested in people innovating here, so if you have something different to say, please do so!

Negative teams, I think, are best served by explicating the virtues of clash broadly. What kind of culture is produced by a community that debates about a limited topic for an entire year? What kind of people does this style of debate produce? Pairing this offense with smart defensive arguments about aff team's offense often makes procedural constraint an alluring option.

-I particularly enjoy argument innovation, so if you have something new to say or a new way of explaining something, I'll probably be interested and be willing to give higher points because of this.

-I agree with nearly everything in Kevin Hirn's judge philosophy, and his coaching has deeply influenced how I think about debate, so if you're looking for something specific, you may want to look there. Brad Bolman and Calum Matheson have also influenced me a great deal.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 SRR R2 Niles West Dulguun Bat-erdene & Ephraim Bennett Lexington Rishi Mukherjee & David Cai Neg
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open Octas Homestead MW Whitney Young MM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open Double Maine East SS Wayzata LY Neg Neg on a 3-0
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open R6 Northside CB Montgomery Bell KP Aff
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open R5 Edina SA Glenbrook North GK Neg
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open R4 Glenbrook North DS Univ Of Chicago Lab CK Neg
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open R3 Glenbrook North BC Head Royce RaWo Neg
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open R2 Glenbrook South DA Homestead LW Neg
Trevian Invitational 10/12/2019 Open R1 West Des Moines Valley KK Montgomery Bell BE Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Final HFBRMS BaMe HFBRMS MM Neg Neg on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Semis HFBRMS NW HFBRMS MM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL B-S Classic HJO RK Classic EGW BB Aff Neg on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Octos HJLPPW HS HFBRMS BM Neg Neg on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Double FFPSVZ RV HMMK RD Neg Aff on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R4 FFPSVZ WP CCMWP AB Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R4 Classic ABZ DP Classic RW LK Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R3 HMMK MS Classic ABZ WB Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R3 FFPSVZ RV K-Lab JM Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R2 CCMWP FU Classic HJO MM Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R2 K-Lab CM Classic RW PK Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R1 Classic EGW FT Classic MPP GG Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R1 CCMWP CS HMMK PP Aff
Southern Bell Forum MBA 1/5/2019 SBF Octos Glenbrook South GS Niles North LI Aff Aff on a 3-0
Southern Bell Forum MBA 1/5/2019 SBF R5 Glenbrook South KS Chattahoochee AA Aff
Southern Bell Forum MBA 1/5/2019 SBF R3 Chattahoochee AP Barstow DT Neg
Southern Bell Forum MBA 1/5/2019 SBF R1 Dallas Highland Park ML Berkeley Prep KK Aff
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/14/2018 CX Double Georgetown Day PR Greenhill EA Neg Neg on a 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/14/2018 CX R7 Georgetown Day BF Mount Carmel Independent RN Neg
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/14/2018 CX R3 Lexington CT Peninsula LQ Aff
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/14/2018 CX R2 Kent Denver KL Whitney Young PJ Aff
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/14/2018 CX R1 Brooklyn Technical WR Glenbrook North NR Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Final Montgomery Bell BH New Trier AK Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Semis Glenbrook North KP New Trier AK Aff Neg on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Octos Glenbrook South KS Alpharetta HS BM Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Double New Trier AK Whitney Young PM Aff Aff on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R7 New Trier EK Chattahoochee AA Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R6 Whitney Young OM Montgomery Bell BH Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R5 Lane Tech PB Whitney Young GL Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R4 Whitney Young JM Montgomery Bell KK Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R3 New Trier AK Little Rock Central GL Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R2 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart AG New Trier CX Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R1 Univ Of Chicago Lab LP New Trier RT Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R7 CPPWW AC HJPPV GK Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R6 Classic FH MN CPPWW NP Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R5 Classic BO BM HJPPV HS Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R4 FFGSV ZL MMMR RY Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R3 Woodward MR K Lab MY Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R2 JM Lab TM CPPWW KN Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R1 CPPWW KQ HJPPV BM Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX Semis North Broward Prep MR Montgomery Bell GH Neg Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R7 Hawken AZ Whitney Young MW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 NCX R6 H.H. Dow HP West Des Moines Valley LD Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R5 Lane Tech MC Cypress Bay BB Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R4 Niles West BR Cathedral Prep BC Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R3 Chicago Lab RW Cathedral Prep AJ Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R2 Chicago Lab LP H.H. Dow WW Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R1 St Ignatius Cleveland CW Chicago Lab BS Neg