Brandon Lu ParadigmLast changed 4/22 10:09A EDT
I believe that fiat is illusory. Why do we debate the hypothetical implementation of topical government action? What does the better debating mean? Convince me why your method does something good. My favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.
Please bring food.
I debated 4 years of PF for Ridge in high school and I currently do policy for NYU. I will try to adapt as best as possible to debaters but sometimes I might not be able to so please ask questions on anything you're unsure about.
Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.
Please ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful.
I am the master of the bid round
I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.
Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.
Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.
I'm currently split on whether 2nd rebuttal must frontline. I'll default to no unless someone in the round tells me I should and you can debate it out. Any net benefit will make me believe yes -this means you can all have a theory debate and if someone persuades me to always think yes, I'll give 30 speaks. If someone reads new off case arguments in 2nd rebuttal, read theory on it.
Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary.
In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).
How to win my ballot:
Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.
I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).
I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).
I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.
I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.
Things I like:
Debating the line by line well.
Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.
Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.
Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).
Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.
A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.
Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.
Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.
Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice.
Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.
Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).
Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.
Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.
Things I hate:
New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.
Paraphrasing evidence in case- I don't like it but teams seem to do it anyway no matter what I do so I can't really do anything about it, but please don't. It's bad for debate.
Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.
How I award speaks:
30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.
29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.
28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.
27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.
26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.
Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)
30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.
Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.
I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.
Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.
I will adjudicate a TKO if someone decides to go for it. If you believe at any point in the debate that you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (dropped terminal d overview, dropped prereq case arg, theory, k, irreparable strategic error), you can stop the round and ask me to evaluate it. If you are right, you win with 30s; if you are wrong, you lose with 28s. Many rounds I've judged were over in first summary. It's usually very obvious if you are able to call a TKO.
If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 1. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 1.
You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.
If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.
I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something I think is dumb.
Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts
TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.
Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.
I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.
K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.
K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.
Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.
Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.
Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.
I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.
I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.
Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.
I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.
DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).
CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.
Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.
K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.
Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).
T: For some reason, I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.
Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.