Manny Navarrete Paradigm

Last changed 1/21 6:09P EDT

Updated: January 2020

Grady '18

Emory '22

Coaching affiliations: AUDL Debate Ambassadors (Grady, Decatur, Drew Charter, etc.), 2018-

Varsity policy rounds judged on this topic: 12 (2 elims) (read: not super familiar with it but have a working grasp of the Saudi Arabia and Taiwan affirmatives and am almost entirely unexposed to judging affs without plans on this topic)

Add me to the chain - mnav453@gmail.com

Feel free to email if you have questions about anything I've written here or if you thought of a question after post-round feedback

I have one of the worst poker faces --- you will know what I think about the round and whatever argument is being discussed in the moment.

People who have influenced how I think about debate: Erik Mathis, Nick Lepp, Brian Klarman

Scroll to the end for non-policy

BFHS 2020 LD UPDATE: Scroll down if you want to read my general thoughts, but the short if it is that I have zero experience in LD aside from judging some rounds during the last BFHS, and as such if you have me judging your debate you need to approach things like a "traditional" policy debate i.e. the affirmative should affirm the topic and negative should negate it. I'm also not huge on theory debates, so make of that what you will.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE / TIPS

Below 28.3: You're clipping and/or you're REALLY bad - either way, please go back to basics

28.4-28.7: Bad

28.7-29.1: Average/Good

29.2-29.6: Great

29.7-29.9: Top Speaker

30: Best speaker I've ever seen (have not given one of these yet)

NON NEGOTIABLES

At the end of the debate, I will sign a ballot that indicates who I thought won and who I thought lost the debate.

2 teams of 2 debaters each, with each debater giveing 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, within speech and prep times.

I will only flow the first debater who speaks in a given speech. Prompting will not be flowed until the person actually giving the speech says the argument(s).

"Insert this rehighlighting" is a no go. Debate is a communication activity and you need to treat it as such.

Arguments I will never vote on: death / self harm good; pref sheets args; out-of-round incidents

An accusation of an ethics violation i.e. clipping will result in the immediate stop of the round. The accusing team will need video / audio evidence of this accusation.

MY RFD MAKING PROCESS

I try to only evaluate decisions my flow says were debated out throughout the round - if I can't trace an aff argument back to the 1AC/2AC for example, then I will try not to vote on it unless there is some extenuating circumstance (like the 1AR impact turning a new impact to a DA) to excuse it. This means that you should probably go slightly slower on arguments you want to make sure I flow in good detail. I suggest doing this for theory debates especially.

The first 30 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should attempt to write my RFD for me - even something as straightforward as "vote negative because the risk of a link on the DA outweighs the risk of the aff's advantages" or "vote affirmative because they dropped condo in the 2NR" goes a long way towards clarifying where you the think the debate is at and how you want me to evaluate what you think you're winning and how that interacts with what you think you're losing.

Close debates tend to come down to the evidence. In these cases, you should take care to think about your card doc before the round - Which pieces of evidence do you want me to read after the round? Where is your evidence better or weaker than theirs? How do you want to deal with those asymmetries? These are all things you should take into consideration when crafting your set of evidence to read in the debate.

QUOTES I AGREE WITH

"Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great." - Erik Mathis

"The best debaters isolate which argument they're winning and then spend the vast majority of their final rebuttals explaining how that influences the rest of the debate." - Zahir Shaikh

"Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering." - Adrienne Brovero

"I love good Topicality debates. To me, Topicality is like a disadvantage. You need to control the link debate and make it clear that your interpretation has an impact in the round and on debate as a whole, and/or debate as a game and an activity." - LaTonya Starks

"I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation." - Hunter McCullough

"Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists." - Caitlin Walrath

PREDISPOSITIONS AND PREFERENCES

This is how I think I judge, which may or may not be accurate

The rest of this---------------------------------------X-----What Happens in the Debate

Read all of the cards-------------------------X-------------------Flow only

Tech--------X------------------------------------Truth

Smart analytic------X--------------------------------------OK card

More ev-----------------------------------------X---Quality ev

Impact defense----------------------------------X----------Internal link defense

Fairness is an internal link------X--------------------------------------Fairness is an impact

"The state is bad so we shouldn't be topical"---------------------------------------X-----"the process of debating hypothetical state action results in violent skills/education/community norms/etc"

Reasonability-----------------------------X---------------Competing Interps

"There's always a risk"-------------------------------X-------------Terminal defense

"Framework - weigh the aff"----------------------------------X----------"our aff is a pedagogically good idea"

Floating PIKs good-----------------------------X---------------Floating PIKs bad

Condo good-X-------------------------------------------Condo bad

"1 condo solves"-------------------------------------------X-"Conditionality is the devil"

High theory---------------------------------------X-----any other critical argument

Solvency advocate required--------------X------------------------------Solvency advocate optional

Process CPs good------X--------------------------------------Process CPs bad

"We turn the case because we also result in their impact"---------------------------------------X-----"We turn the case because we make it impossible for them to solve their impact"

TOPIC-SPECIFIC THOUGHTS (ARMS CONTROL)

I put this at the bottom because I find topic knowledge does not make a good or bad judge, rather it determines the burden of explanation for certain arguments. Most judges know what to do with a politics DA and case debate but need some extra clarification on T violations and such.

Seems miles better than education or immigration...looking back, I am not a particularly big fan of one advantage and framing affs because the framing arguments tended to be on-face rejection of CP's and DA's when the aff would have been better off answering the specifics of those arguments. Maybe those were just better topics for discussion rather than debatable controversies but what I can do to change the past...

LD-SPECIFC STUFF

tl;dr I don't know much of the activity and thus you should approach like in a "policy-esque" way. Additionally, it would behoove you to do less theory work than you might be used to. Overall, my advice is to pref me only if you are comfortable with a standard policy debater judging; if not, then don't.

I have very little understanding of the nuances of the activity, i.e. what constitutes a well-constructed case for me might be different than what is generally considered to be such in the community. I'm also a policy debater by training and so I probably lean towards "progressive" trends than some (as in, I am fine with spreading). I also have ZERO knowledge of the topic and you should be prepared to break down its complexities for me. One other thing: I will probably use my policy speaker point scale from the beginning of this philosophy but I have no idea if that scale is typical of current numbers or not.

PF-SPECIFIC STUFF

Dear Lord, PLEASE kick scenarios by the end of the debate --- my ideal debate has each side go for 1-2 impacts and most of the final focuses being spent on impact comparison (Mr. T, for example).

Most crossfires I have seen are filled with bad or leading question --- instead of asking "You failed to respond to our card about (insert issue here), so doesn't that mean we win" you should be asking questions like "why should the judge prefer your evidence over ours"

Pet peeves --- offenders will be docked speaks ---

don't say "we tell you about (insert issue here)" --- just say what you want to say about the issue

DO NOT END YOUR SPEECH WITH "FOR ALL THESE REASONS I STRONGLY URGE A (INSERT SIDE HERE) BALLOT" --- I know what side people are on and will intuitively understand what you say is a reason to vote for you...

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2020 LD RKR H.B. Plant TK Durham JP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2020 LD WAU H.B. Plant TK William G. Enloe TG Aff Aff on a 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2020 LD R4 Northview YS Unionville KL Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2020 LD R3 Harvard-Westlake AM Santa Monica RE Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/18/2020 VCX R4 Cambridge HS MR Woodward RW Neg
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/18/2020 VCX R2 Galloway DH Woodward TL Neg
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/18/2020 VCX R1 Riverwood JP Woodward HS Neg
Peach State Classic 11/15/2019 VCX Quarte Woodward Wombough & Ghanate Northview Holsambre & Ippagunta Aff Aff on a 3-0
Peach State Classic 11/15/2019 VCX R5 Woodward Hood & Slater Northview Holsambre & Ippagunta Neg
Peach State Classic 11/15/2019 VCX R4 Mountain Brook Glenos & Jack Woodward Sachdeva & Thakur Neg
Peach State Classic 11/15/2019 VCX R3 Altamont Anders & Maldia Johns Creek Kalan & Rambhatla Aff
Peach State Classic 11/15/2019 VCX R2 Johns Creek Coval & Yang Woodward Wombough & Ghanate Neg
Peach State Classic 11/15/2019 VCX R1 Woodward Ghanate & Reddy Northview Shah & Rammohan Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX Semis Alpharetta HS SD Westminster MP Neg Neg on a 3-0
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 NCX Quarte Woodward HY Alpharetta HS DJ Neg Neg on a 3-0
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX R6 Alpharetta HS SD Woodward HL Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 NCX R4 USN MF Alpharetta HS CS Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX R1 Woodward ST Alpharetta HS NG Neg
2019 Emory National Debate Institute Tournament 6/20/2019 Open R6 MW Vasilopoulos & Lara HKS Schelzig & Valencia Aff
2019 Emory National Debate Institute Tournament 6/20/2019 Open R5 HKS Quartey & Gil MW Stockard & Wainwright Aff
2019 Emory National Debate Institute Tournament 6/20/2019 Open R4 BW Shonka & Ubani MW Davalos-DeLosh & Draves Neg
2019 Emory National Debate Institute Tournament 6/20/2019 Open R3 BW Edmonds & Munroe BW Pflaum & Agarwal Aff
2019 Emory National Debate Institute Tournament 6/20/2019 Open R1 BW Kochel & Van Kruijssen HQ Houtkin & Baldwin Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/15/2019 CX1 Octafi Alpharetta Naik & Gudapati Greenhill Wu & Sureka Aff Aff on a 3-0
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/15/2019 CX2 6 USN Fox & Kassim Cambridge Halfon & Stockstill Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/15/2019 CX2 5 Georgetown Day Mason & Wohlstadter Greenhill Meng & Kwon Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/15/2019 CX2 3 Cambridge Menon & Reddy Niles West Bat-erdene & Bennett Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/25/2019 LD PB Oak Hall KZ St. Andrew's Episcopal IB Neg Neg on a 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/25/2019 LD RKR Greenhill MR West Broward EM Aff Aff on a 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/25/2019 LD WAU St. Andrew's Episcopal IB Evanston Twp HE Aff Aff on a 3-0
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX Quarte USN CL Montgomery Bell MB Neg Neg on a 3-0
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 VCX R6 Mountain Brook CD Isidore Newman HN Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 VCX R5 Johns Creek DS Mountain Brook HS Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R4 Woodward TP Montgomery Bell EB Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R3 Woodward HO USN KW Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R1 Woodward FC USN CH Neg
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX R6 Dulles LS Caddo Magnet KB Aff
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX R4 St. Andrew's Episcopal BJ Caddo Magnet LW Aff
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX R3 Reagan BL Greenhill RK Aff
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX R1 Caddo Magnet PW Baton Rouge Magnet GQ Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R7 Little Rock Central GL Glenbrook North BS Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R4 Montgomery Bell FM McDowell SZ Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R3 Glenbrook South DS Northside CH Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 NCX R1 Maine East SaBa Berkeley Prep BF Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/28/2018 VCX R4 USN CD Wheeler LR Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/28/2018 VCX R2 Wheeler PS Berkeley Prep KK Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/28/2018 VCX R1 Marist FO Northview YP Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 CX1 R4 Pine Crest Prep Rubin & Kislin Little Rock Central Moulden & Meredith Neg
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 CX2 R3 Greenhill Hurst & Witheiler Mamaroneck Weber & Bianco Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/23/2018 CX1 R1 Greenhill Feinstein & Kwon Alpharetta HS Crosby & Kpeglo Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 NCX R4 Woodward KV Alpharetta HS AS Neg
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 NCX R3 Alpharetta HS KC Cambridge CS Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 NCX R2 Wheeler SP Marist RB Neg
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 NCX R1 Mount Vernon Presbyterian HM Wheeler ZJ Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/17/2017 CX1 R5 Wayzata Yerraguntala & Sun Cambridge Gurude & Mruz Aff
1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy 3/17/2017 CX1 R2 Marquette Univ Medeiros & Myer Niles West Lasso & Chappotin-Betancourt Neg
GFCA First and Second Year State Championships 2/11/2017 NCX R4 Chattahoochee AA Westminster BV Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/25/2015 NP R5 Isidore Newman Khoobehi & Qi Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/25/2015 NP R4 Riverwood Terrell & Aquebor Westminster Schools Miles & Taha Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/25/2015 NP R3 Northview Bandlamudi & Vaghela Milton Reddy & Morella Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/25/2015 NP R2 Wheeler Samata & Sengupta Riverwood Simmons & Weinstein Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/25/2015 NP R1 Cambridge Reddy & Sayal University School of Nashville Dasari & French Neg