Austin Thoma ParadigmLast changed 8/29 7:31P MDT
Refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names.
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I've noticed that as a judge I tend to close my eyes while I'm thinking. Some debaters have assumed that I was sleeping during their speeches. I assure you that this is not the case.
Fifth year judging college debate. Director of Debate at Wyoming. Previously coached for Cornell. Judged and coached high school in the past.
I do not reject any argument on its face. Everything I say here is preliminary - these ideas can be changed by arguments in-round. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have predispositions that will influence my decisions - as we all do. I will try to highlight critical points here, but will clarify anything at tournaments or via email - contact me at email@example.com. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it in any particular order.
It takes an awful lot for me to call for cards. If you aren't explaining it, it doesn't really matter. The arguments you make about the cards are more important than the evidence itself.
One good argument is better than lots of bad arguments. I have noticed that my theory threshold is not as low as it once was, but I believe that it is still lower than average. Theory debates are my favorite, but only if teams engage instead of just reading blocks.
My presumption is neg - aff should propose a change from the status quo.
Aff should be in the direction of the topic. This is a fairly ambiguous concept, but I feel like you'll know it when it happens. Does your aff want more executive control? If so, I probably won't be predisposed to vote for it, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Engaging "the system" (political, social, whatever power structure you want to talk about) is productive (perhaps with negative consequences).
Rhetoric choices matter - and come before evaluation of plan action.
Aff severence of 1AC rhetoric / assumptions is illegitimate.
Conditionality on neg is good for debate.
Condo does not let you no link rhetoric/reps arguments.
2NR condo is illegitimate.
Fiat is good for debate.
Performative argumentation is good for debate.
Fairness is of at least as much importance as education in the context of debate.
Narratives - personal or otherwise - need to be applied to broader, more generalized arguments to make sense in the context of the round.
"100% no link" is real and possible, but difficult.
Politics DAs are pretty silly.
Debate rounds are not particularly good forums for starting social change.
"Traditional policy" framework is a legitimate strategy better served with fewer arguments that are better developed than a multitude of arguments that are less developed. To get my ballot here, I suggest focusing on skills development.
Try to refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names. I rarely write all of these down. This is obviously less true when attacking cites or comparing evidence, but it is certainly true in extensions. "Extend the Johnson evidence" doesn't do much for me.
Prep stops when you tell me it stops. Prep starts when speeches end. Don't prep during evidence flashing/emailing. I will punish it.