Kristopher Samuel Paradigm

Last changed 1/29 1:03P EDT

I debated at Liberty University and currently a grad student at James Madison. I won a speaker award as a novice in highschool, so you can say I am pretty experienced in debate.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.


Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

In terms of arguments, I am not the best judge in the back of a room in a policy throw-down type debate. That said, if I do end up in the back of your room, please slow down when explaining the scenarios and just unpack for me. In terms of K on K debate, I am fine. In terms of Clash, I prefer to judge those types of debate.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are best at will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Also, be nice to your opponents. It's not cool to be mean and talking down to your opponents can honestly hurt them both emotionally and physically, and just sets a bad example for younger debaters to adopt those practices. Sometimes, being nice to your opponents/judges, even when you feel they don't deserve it, can be the wisest choice in that moment. And if you gotta be a jerk, you can just yell at me instead.

email: krissamuel319@gmail.com

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
NDT District VII Qualifier 2/15/2020 JV R3 Mary Washington HeMc George Mason BP Neg
NDT District VII Qualifier 2/15/2020 JV R1 George Mason BT Mary Washington HuMi Neg
Liberty University 1/24/2020 Novice Quarte George Mason IS Navy CY Aff Aff on a 3-0
Liberty University 1/24/2020 Novice R5 George Mason IS Mary Washington HM Aff
Liberty University 1/24/2020 Open R2 Mary Washington RH George Mason JS Neg
Liberty University 1/24/2020 Novice R1 George Mason MP Mary Washington HuMi Neg
Crowe Warken Debates at USNA 1/18/2020 JV R8 George Mason JV CSU Long Beach NV Aff
Crowe Warken Debates at USNA 1/18/2020 Open R5 Michigan HL United States Military KT Aff
Crowe Warken Debates at USNA 1/18/2020 Open R2 Georgia State CA George Mason ST Neg
George Mason Debate Tournament College 11/8/2019 Open R6 United States Military HS Florida SK Neg
George Mason Debate Tournament College 11/8/2019 Open R5 George Mason AH Georgetown AM Neg
George Mason Debate Tournament College 11/8/2019 Open R3 Georgetown CR Emory CZ Neg
George Mason Debate Tournament College 11/8/2019 Open R1 Wake Forest AJ George Mason TS Aff
UMW Debate Tournament 10/11/2019 JV R4 Cornell VY George Mason JS Aff
GSU Atlanta Season Opener 9/14/2019 OP R6 NYU BS West Virginia BM Neg
GSU Atlanta Season Opener 9/14/2019 OP R5 Houston GS UT San Antonio HW Aff
GSU Atlanta Season Opener 9/14/2019 OP R2 Harvard AC Kentucky KL Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD Quarte Freehold Township SA Newark Science SBa Neg Neg on a 3-0
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD Octas Lexington LE Freehold Township NL Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD Double Bridgewater Raritan AK Bronx HS Of Science JB Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R5 Harrison AK Newark Science SB Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R5 Harrison SN Lexington LE Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R4 Freehold Township NL Millburn KW Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R4 Millburn AH Newark Science SBa Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R3 Hunter DS Bridgewater Raritan JM Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R2 Millburn AV Lexington MK Aff
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R2 Bridgewater Raritan SG Freehold Township SA Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R1 Harrison GC Bronx HS Of Science JB Aff
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VLD R1 Millburn AG Lexington CL Neg
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX BO-Q Dr. Bessie Rhodes School of Global Studies GT SA Bronx 2 OL Neg Aff on a 2-1
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R5 SA Bronx 2 OL SA Bed-Stuy CP Aff
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R3 SA Midtown West LL Lincoln WM Neg
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R2 SA Midtown West AH Montgomery Bell PT Neg
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R1 Lincoln WR SA Harlem East ED Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/28/2018 LD R6 Harvard-Westlake JD Greenhill AM Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/28/2018 LD R1 Harvard-Westlake SK Dulles MK Neg
Columbia University Invitational 1/19/2018 VLD R6 Harrison LC Stuyvesant KL Neg
Columbia University Invitational 1/19/2018 VLD R6 Cypress Woods MT Carrollton PD Aff
Columbia University Invitational 1/19/2018 VLD R5 Vestavia Hills SW Cypress Woods AK Aff
Columbia University Invitational 1/19/2018 VLD R3 Harrison MRy Stuyvesant CL Neg
Columbia University Invitational 1/19/2018 VLD R3 Bronx HS Of Science HW Harrison GC Neg
Columbia University Invitational 1/19/2018 VLD R2 Newtown NS Bronx HS Of Science AW Neg
Jersey Shore Invitational at Monmouth University 11/18/2017 Nov R6 Monmouth DM Wilkes KD Aff
Newark Invitational 1/8/2015 VLD R3 Whippany Park AW Princeton CA Neg
Newark Invitational 1/8/2015 VLD R2 Benjamin N Cardozo AB Ridge SK Neg
Newark Invitational 1/8/2015 VLD R1 Lexington ZA Harrison AG Neg
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 NLD Octa Byram Hills JB Lexington NB Aff Neg on a 2-1
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 NLD R4 Stuyvesant YE Scarsdale EM Aff
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 NLD R3 Bronx Science RR Lexington KB Neg
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 NLD R2 Collegiate JP Byram Hills RP Aff
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 NLD R1 Byram Hills DMe Harrison AEl Aff
The Ridge Debates 2013 12/13/2013 NLD R4 Newark Science LR Hunter College ET Aff
The Ridge Debates 2013 12/13/2013 NLD R4 Regis BR Bronx Science SG Aff
The Ridge Debates 2013 12/13/2013 NLD R3 Princeton SH Scarsdale JC Aff
The Ridge Debates 2013 12/13/2013 NLD R3 Montville RU Hunter College AK Neg
The Ridge Debates 2013 12/13/2013 NLD R1 Scarsdale ZE Harrison RP Neg
The Ridge Debates 2013 12/13/2013 NLD R1 Harrison DS Princeton CL Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R5 Hunter GS Newtown RA Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R5 Hunter SA Scarsdale LS Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R4 Princeton SV Catonsville TM Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R2 Medina EH West Windsor-Plainsboro HS South RB Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R2 Catonsville RS West Windsor-Plainsboro HS South AI Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R1 Ridge SM Bronx Science WL Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/6/2013 NLD R1 Harrison JW Bronx Science GV Aff