Kenny Delph ParadigmLast changed 9/26 9:55P EDT
I have 7 years of experience in policy debate: I debated 3 years at Little Rock Central (2013-2016) and 4 years at the University of Kansas (2016-2020). I currently am a GTA at Wake Forest and Coach for Bronx Science.
When it comes to evaluating debates, two things are the most important for me:
1. clear judge instructions in the rebuttals of how I should filter offense and arguments made in the round. Impact and Link framing are a must. if I cant explain the argument myself, I probably can't vote on it.
2. Impact comparison and clear reason why i should prioritize impacts in the round between the neg and aff. Each argument should have a claim - warrant - impact for me to evaluate it as such.
Use these to filter the rest of my paradigm and general in round perception.
Most of my debate experience was in critical debates on both the aff and neg (I was a 1A/2N), but i’m not unfamiliar with the technical aspects of policy debates.
I’m probably not the best for Topicality debates in general when it comes to plan policy debates and less likely to vote on Framework vs plan-less affs if going for impacts such as fairness/competitive equity or predictability. I generally lean more into truth over tech in most debates, but tech is important for impact comparison.
Its my first year as a college debate judge, so making sure i clearly understand what i should evaluate without intervention from me comes down to how you go for your arguments. The less judge intervention i feel like i have to do, the happier we are all in the post-round RFD.
Truth over tech/Tech over truth? - Depends, i view myself evaluating truth before tech concessions but that isn’t always the case. I think technical concession are important for evaluating impact debates, so utilize both these to your advantage.
Framework on the Neg? - I’ll evaluate any negative arguments about the meta of debate. If you win your model of debate is good and the aff in question doesn’t access it then generally I’m pretty neutral on Framework arguments. Same for K’s with framing questions, the way you want me to evaluate a prior question should be framed as such.
10 off? I’d prefer if you didn’t, gish galloping is a fascist tactic.
Theory arguments? I believe theory arguments are heavily under utilized in high school debates. I evaluate conditionality and presumption debates as much as I evaluate K vs Framework.
I consider myself to be pretty flex when it comes to arguments that teams want to read. I debate more critical but you should read whatever arguments that you are comfortable with. Any racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc will be met wth speaker points that reflect, so don't be an asshole.
"Truth over tech?" depends, most debates if you are winning a structuring claims about things i tend to lean more truth over tech, but tech concession of impact/link turns etc. i also find persuasive
I have a certain threshold for certain arguments that I will vote on in theory debates, I think condo is a definite aff/neg ballot if it gets dropped in the neg block or rebuttals. I tend to vote neg on presumption, in those debates I think a lot of the perm debate and solvency portions of both sides are important to those rounds. CP contextual theory, perm text theory, textual severance, etc etc im all game for theory. i think theory debates get underutilized a lot
I think this portion of the debate is always underutilized and a lot of affirmatives get away with weighing impacts of badly constructed advantages with bad internal links to their impacts - impact turns are cool yo.
I read them, I think that you should read whatever you read on the aff. I will vote for them, but I at least think they should be in the direction of the topic and a reason why the topical version doesn't solve.
If performance is your thing - go ahead go for it.
FW on the neg
I will vote on a neg FW but I think that there are certain arguments that I'm gonna have a harder time pulling the trigger on, i.e. fairness. I don't think fairness is something I would absolutely vote on but of course that all depends on the round. I also think the neg should be doing a lot of work why the state/usfg is worth it, why the aff isnt good for a model of debate, or why the judge should care. Generic args on framework aren't gonna cut it for me tbh, i need a concise way of why i should view the debate through the neg and why the aff doesnt solve etc etc.
Read them is HS, still read them in college. Pretty versed in most of the lit but you shouldn't use a lot of buzzwords in front of me. I think you should say why the aff is uniquely bad and how the alternative can resolve its impacts and the squo. Why perms don't solve, links are disads, etc etc. I find alternative debates to be the most shallow, I think even if you are winning reason the links are disads you still need a reason the alt isn't the squo. Role of the ballot arguments are self-serving but it makes is a lot easier to evaluate them when they are dropped or not contested by the aff. Aff teams: FW on Ks is underutilized, I think you should make arguments about why you should get to weigh your impacts vs the K.
Any other questions just ask before the round, "If you can't dazzle me with excellence, baffle me with bullshit."