Dominic Schlossberg Paradigm

Last changed 7/24 6:00P EDT

This is literally Caspar Arbeeny's paradigm. One thing I will add is that if you tag a response as a turn and it ends up being a defensive argument I will be very compelled to deduct speaker points. As a wise man once said about a wiser man: "please don't force me to think."

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

  • Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
  • Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
  • Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
  • Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
  • Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
  • Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
  • Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
  • Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
  • Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
  • Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving thee following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
  • Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
  • Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
  • Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
  • Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

  • One team tells me to.
  • I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
  • I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
  • I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
The 15th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2018 VPF Partia Delbar WF Hunter XB Neg Neg on a 3-0
The 15th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2018 VPF R6 Prince KC Delbar AG Neg
The 15th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2018 VPF R5 Lex PW Edgemo YG Aff
The 15th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2018 VPF R4 RidHS KY Hunter KP Neg
The 15th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2018 VPF R2 HorMan MJ Lex WW Aff
The 15th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2018 VPF R1 HorMan CG ThoS. RS Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF Runoff Trinity Prep RH Delbarton LT Neg Neg on a 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R6 Newton South LF Walt Whitman BaWe Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R6 Bronx HS Of Science DG Newton South RC Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R5 Princeton RB Trinity Prep RH Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R2 Spence DF Stuyvesant LR Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/12/2018 PF R2 Berkeley Carroll FM Dalton Independent CF Neg
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF Semis Unclou Palmer & Palmer Unclou Quarton & Guber Neg Aff on a 4-3
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF Qrtrs aveRAG Keshav & Moorjani UNclout Zhu & Singh Aff Aff on a 2-1
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF Elim Unclou Palmer & Palmer LavBil Zydney & Brauser Neg Aff on a 2-1
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF Elim Unclou Miranda & Gumlia LavBil Meyer & Humes Aff Aff on a 3-0
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R7 Jesthi Song & Huang aveRAG Sullivan & Wu Aff
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R6 Jesthi Dannull & Burns aveRAG Mu & Sun Aff
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R4 Whoget Mukunda & Seidman LavBil Srivastava & Wright Neg
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R4 Unclou Guo & Gupta Whoget Mauro & Shilts Aff
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R3 LavBil Yang & Cassese Jesthi Ge & Chavan Aff
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R3 LavBil Meyer & Humes Unclou Hayden & Kingery Aff
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R1 Unclou Gunda & Irfan aveRAG Narayan & Smart Neg
ISD Carolina 7/25/2018 PF R1 LavBil Zydney & Brauser aveRAG Kenchen & Papp Aff