Brandon Lu Paradigm

Last 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 (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

PF Paradigm

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)

Miscellaneous things:

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.

LD Paradigm

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.

Policy 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.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 VPF Double North Broward Prep KP Hawken EG Neg Aff on a 2-1
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 VPF Trips Strath Haven LS Summit BC Neg Neg on a 3-0
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 JVPF R6 Newton South TC Half Hollow Hills HS East IG Aff
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 VPF R5 Bronx Science OS Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches SG Neg
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 VPF R5 Chaminade MV Jupiter BL Neg
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 JVPF R4 Poly Prep Country Day LB Charles W. Flanagan High/Falcon DM Neg
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 JVPF R4 Spence MS Hackley CY Neg
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 VPF R3 Winston Churchill HM Montgomery Blair JQ Neg
Yale Invitational 9/13/2019 VPF R3 Wayland WW Carrollton SB Aff
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF Quarte Nueva RT Blake JS Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF Octafi Nueva RT Fairmont Prep KO Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF Double Brentwood KN Westridge BM Neg Neg on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF R6 Winston Churchill DD Blake JS Neg
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF R5 Poly Prep Country Day WS University MN Neg
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF R4 Richard Montgomery GL University CT Aff
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF R4 Dublin Jerome TJ Quarry Lane JS Neg
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF R2 Fairmont Prep AI Thomas S. Wootton LM Aff
National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK 9/7/2019 VPF R2 North Broward Prep BC University QC Aff
New Jersey District Tournament 2/23/2019 PF R6 218 213 Aff Aff on a 3-0
New Jersey District Tournament 2/23/2019 BQ R5 1317 1308 Neg Neg on a 2-1
New Jersey District Tournament 2/23/2019 PF R4 158 179 Neg
New Jersey District Tournament 2/23/2019 PF R3 156 216 Neg
New Jersey District Tournament 2/23/2019 PF R2 217 212 Aff
45th Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/16/2019 JVCX Dbls Long Branch CM Mamaroneck RM Neg Neg on a 3-0
45th Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/16/2019 VCX R7 Berkeley Prep KK Liberal Arts and Science EW Aff
45th Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/16/2019 JVCX R6 Houston Memorial BM Stuyvesant HQ Aff
45th Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/16/2019 VCX R5 Whitney Young PJ Berkeley Prep KZ Neg
45th Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/16/2019 JVCX R3 Mamaroneck DK Bronx HS Of Science FX Neg
45th Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/16/2019 JVCX R2 Bronx HS Of Science MR Mamaroneck ZR Aff
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD Quarte Lexington AF Hunter MNi Aff Aff on a 2-1
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD Octs Byram Hills LG Success Academy Manhattan BC Neg Neg on a 3-0
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD Run-of DuPont Manual JX Success Academy Manhattan BC Neg Neg on a 2-1
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD R6 Success Academy Manhattan SB Harriton GB Aff
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 JVLD Double Bridgewater Raritan AKa Woodgrove WF Aff Aff on a 2-1
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD R5 Hill NL Bergen County Academies EL Neg
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD R3 University MW Hunter SK Aff
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD R2 Timber Creek SY Millburn AW Neg
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD R2 Byram Hills TD La Salle IM Aff
44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/8/2019 VLD R1 Hill JM La Salle TW Neg
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 JVPF Quarte Heritage ZS Hunter LC Aff Neg on a 2-1
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 PF Double Strath Haven LS State CaKe Aff Neg on a 2-1
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 PF R4 Oakton TD State ZB Aff
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 JVPF R2 West Windsor XP Trinity AB Neg
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 JVPF R2 Baltimore City BS Strath Haven RS Neg
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 PF R1 Hunter KaLi Bronx Science KM Aff
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational 2/1/2019 PF R1 Trinity MM State CK Neg
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/19/2019 NPF R5 Acton-Boxborough MB Regis FP Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/19/2019 NPF R3 Boston Latin TM Phillips Academy Andover MY Neg
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/19/2019 NPF R2 Lake Highland Prep CA Regis BG Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/19/2019 NPF R1 Boston Latin YH Westborough RN Aff
The Newark Invitational 1/3/2019 VPF Quarte Regis DoMc Monticello LY Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Newark Invitational 1/3/2019 VPF R5 Regis DL Edgemont MR Neg
The Newark Invitational 1/3/2019 VPF R4 Beacon CL Regis LS Aff
The Newark Invitational 1/3/2019 VPF R2 Lawrenceville ZL Regis DM Aff
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VPF Semis Montville BG Regis DM Aff Aff on a 2-1
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VPF Octas Trinity BD Summit CL Aff Aff on a 2-1
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 NPF Double Hackley MR Regis BJ Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VPF R4 Richard Montgomery LW Lexington WW Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VPF R2 Millburn HH West Windsor AB Aff
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VPF R1 Chaminade FaMc Winston Churchill DW Neg
The Ridge Debates 12/7/2018 VPF R1 Stuyvesant SA Montville LM Aff
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF Quarte Stuyvesant LS Hackley BW Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF Run Of Half Hollow Hills HS East EJ West Orange JS Aff Neg on a 2-1
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R7 Hunter TR Unionville GW Neg
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R7 Montville SP Stuyvesant LS Neg
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R5 Leadership and Public Service CS Delbarton AG Aff
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R5 Wayland GZ Millburn AZ Neg
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R3 Montville BG Midwood SC Aff
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R3 Scarsdale CT Newtown SH Aff
The Princeton Classic 11/30/2018 PF R1 West Windsor KD Beacon SK Aff
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD Semis Hunter TR Unionville KR Neg Neg on a 2-1
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD Octos Regis DM Unionville GW Neg Aff on a 2-1
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD R5 Richard Montgomery SW Regis BF Neg
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD R4 Our Lady Of Good Counsel GW Regis AP Neg
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD R3 Regis OP Potomac LW Aff
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD R1 Shrewsbury IW Regis LS Aff
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 PFD R1 Potomac SK Regis AM Aff
William Tennent Invitational 11/3/2018 JVPF Final Ridgewood SB Summit CF Neg Neg on a 3-0
William Tennent Invitational 11/3/2018 VPF Semi Strath Haven KS Delbarton FW Aff Aff on a 2-1
William Tennent Invitational 11/3/2018 VPF Quarte Delbarton FW Strath Haven KZ Aff Aff on a 3-0
William Tennent Invitational 11/3/2018 VPF R2 Delbarton FrWi Summit CS Neg
William Tennent Invitational 11/3/2018 JVPF R1 CR North KW Ridgewood TL Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF Finals Poly Prep Country Day FK Corona Del Sol PJ Neg Neg on a 4-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF Runoff Ransom Everglades SS University MK Neg Neg on a 3-0
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R5 Charlotte Catholic WC Beacon KK Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R3 Lake Highland Prep PC Princeton MR Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R3 Ames AM Lake Mary DC Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R2 Livingston HS Summit SS Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R2 Wheatley JJ Richard Montgomery HZ Neg
William Tennent Invitational 11/4/2017 JVPF R4 Strath Haven MR Montville PS Aff
William Tennent Invitational 11/4/2017 JVPF R3 Academy At Palumbo GG Strath Haven LK Aff
William Tennent Invitational 11/4/2017 JVPF R2 Unionville RZ Delbarton CA Neg