Parker Hopkins
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 15 April 2022 12:50 PM CDTCompeted
2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)
2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)
2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)
Coached
2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China engagement)
2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)
2019- Present – Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)
2020- Present – Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)
Contact Info
Always add: phopsdebate@gmail.com
Also add - HS Policy: h2nodocs@googlegroups.com
Also add - College NDT/CEDA: debatedocs@googlegroups.com
If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.
Email chains should be labeled correctly. *Name of Tournament* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*
tl;dr
You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy args more than K args. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging.
Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.
Online debates:
In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.
Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.
It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.
I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.
People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.
Disads
I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.
Counter Plans
I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. To me, CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affs should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.
Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory args and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.
Kritiks on the Negative
I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments
Links of omission are not links. Reject the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.
Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework
I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced topic helps facilitate that discussion.
Case Debates
Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.
Topicality/procedurals
Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.
I am super uninterested in adjudicating a disclosure theory debate. Especially if the HS Coaching staff of one team has purposefully instructed debaters to not disclose and/or disclosure happened when I was not present. I am interested in telling teams they should disclose because it is clearly good. I may rectify this in speaker points if I do think something exceptionally bad has happened, however, I have yet to do so.
I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round.
Things that are bad, but people continually do:
Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.
Steal prep.
Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.
Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.
Refusing to disclose.
Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.
Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.
Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.
Some random thoughts I had at the end of last season: .
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)
4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.
6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that its not what you do, its what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing teams’ job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.
Full Judging Record
Judge Certifications

Judge attests they have taken the NFHS Cultural Competency Judge Training course. Required of all judges at NSDA tournaments.
nsda-demographics
NSDA Nationals Demographics Questionnaire. Optional form requested of all judges.
nsda-cx-paradigm
Questionnaire required of all Policy judges at the NSDA National Tournament, even if they have a written Tabroom paradigm.
nsda-ld-paradigm
Questionnaire required of all LD judges at the NSDA National Tournament, even if they have a written Tabroom paradigm.

A honor code and release form required of all coaches, competitors and judges at the Tournament of Champions at the University of Kentucky