Brandon Lu ParadigmLast changed 9/14 12:52P EDT
Yale: I hate pizza, so if you can bring me anything for lunch/dinner that isn't pizza, I'll give your team +2 speaks. If you bring me pizza, I will drop your speaks. PLEASE BRING FOOD THE TOURNAMENT IS STARVING ME. If you don't want to end up with the 4-2 screw you really should 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. I've found that I am enjoying Ks a lot recently, so I would be very happy to see one read in front of me (30 speaks in PF).
Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.
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. However, there's no way for me to prevent myself from hearing new responses, so I will allow a much lower threshold for responses to new responses in later speeches.
I do not believe that the 2nd rebuttal should have to respond to the first rebuttal, but the 2nd summary should extend defense to the 1st summary. I'm fine with a split in second rebuttal and consider it useful sometimes, especially if there's off case offense in the first rebuttal. I consider new off case offense in 2nd rebuttal abusive and it is a voting issue if brought up by the other team.
I will extend dropped defense for you from any speech to the end, unless it is responded too. This means that any extensions through ink are illegitimate as long as the response is responsive. That being said, any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. Turns must be extended like offense or I will consider them dropped, but you can extend them as terminal defense from rebuttal to final focus.
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' impact and WEIGH IT. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption.
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. 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:
Weighing- PLEASE WEIGH!!! It's here for the second time for a reason. Especially if you and your opponents have different impacts.
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). 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. Over trolling 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. However, I will not intervene randomly on evidence unless given a reason to.
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)
Extra 1 speak if you cater the round. That's food for me and your opponents.
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.
I default to reasonability for theory debates (if you run theory on novices and they mention reasonability, it is terminal defense). 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.
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 but 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.
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.
I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.
I'm most familiar with LARP: Check out my policy paradigm for that.
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 don't like voting off one line in a speech but I'll still do it.
Performance: Not the most familiar so you'll need to do some handholding. 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 mostly read policy affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. I've judged some performances before and voted for them.
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.
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.
CPs: I believe that CPs should test how plan texts are written so I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory but I don't automatically vote down any abusive CPs. CPs must have competition in some way, usually through a net benefit.
Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- actually explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. That being said, I'm a very K friendly judge. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it.
Fw: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates.
T: I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Can be changed.
Theory: I default to reasonability and drop the argument. Can be changed. If you win an RVI I'll vote on it.