Wesley Cornett Paradigm

Last changed 10/19 7:54A CST

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech. Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Salina South Cougar Classic 10/18/2019 DCI R5 Shawnee Mission West CW Wichita East SD Aff
Salina South Cougar Classic 10/18/2019 DCI R4 Shawnee Mission South KS Manhattan JK Aff
Salina South Cougar Classic 10/18/2019 DCI R3 Shawnee Mission West ZW Shawnee Mission South HT Neg
NCFL Grand National Tournament 5/25/2019 CX R5 104 209 Aff Aff on a 3-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament 5/25/2019 CX R3 102 166 Neg Neg on a 3-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament 5/25/2019 CX R2 167 152 Aff Aff on a 3-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament 5/25/2019 CX R1 136 176 Aff Aff on a 3-0
ONW Forensics Invitational NIETOC 3/1/2019 LD R3 26 JD 31 WM Neg
ONW Forensics Invitational NIETOC 3/1/2019 PF R1 7 TN 20 FK Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R6 TSAS JD Kickap AW Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R6 BroArr EP Jenks GM Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 5LD Semis Cascia CJ MetChr AM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R4 BTW SR Jenks NC Aff
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R4 MetChr CM TSAS HW Aff
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 QPF R3 Bixby AB Owasso PW Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 QPF R3 ChaPag DG Muskog EC Aff
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R2 Owasso LT TSAS CC Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R2 Kickap KJ Bartle MH Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CPF R1 Owasso JW Kickap MM Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI Double Wichita East Madeline Halabi & Quan Nguyen Blue Valley West April Ma & Heer Mehta Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R6 Goddard Steven Kurtzweil & Makenna Moreno Barstow Kate English & Kelsie Jackson Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R5 Wichita East Malhar Tamhane & Noah Yust Barstow Miles Luce & Jacqueline Tingle Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R4 Barstow Meghana Lakkireddy & Mark Lopatofsky Blue Valley Northwest Emma Kingston & Shruthi Venkatachalam Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R3 Blue Valley West Supta Das & Aryan Verma Shawnee Mission West Maleah Zumalt & Rebecca Cathey Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/14/2018 VADB8 R2 BV Northwest KV BV North AV Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 WS Trips New England Gold West Los Angeles Gold Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 WS R6 Pittsburgh Black Yellow Rose White Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 WS R5 New Mexico Gold South Texas Red Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 WS R4 Tall Cotton Red Deep South White Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 WS R3 Southern Wisconsin Red East Texas Red Neg
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD Semis 3093 3170 Neg Neg on a 5-0
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R5 3078 3205 Aff Aff on a 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R3 3147 3072 Neg Aff on a 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R3 3116 3124 Aff Aff on a 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R2 3148 3088 Aff Aff on a 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R2 3154 3090 Neg Neg on a 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R1 3133 3040 Aff Aff on a 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 LD R1 3216 3077 Neg Neg on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/8/2017 CX R4 AD Hassell & Sherrow AF Walker & Webster Aff Aff on a 3-0
Panther Debate Tournament 10/27/2017 KDC Quarte BluVal CM Andove BP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Panther Debate Tournament 10/27/2017 DCI R3 Eisenhower Brown & Jacobson Kapaun Mount Carmel Bolinger & Magana Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/19/2017 WS R5 West Iowa Blue Idaho Gem of the Mountain Blue Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/19/2017 WS R2 Three Trails Red Inland Empire White Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/19/2017 WS R1 Idaho Mountain River Blue Southern Minnesota Neg