Nico Rodriguez-Hanley Paradigm

Last changed 1/18 11:57A EDT

Debated 4 years at Shawnee Mission East

Currently debate at KU

he/him

Add me to the email chain -

email: nicorhanley@gmail.com

Before I edited my paradigm (1/11/2020) I think it did a better job of explaining a lot of stuff that people dont really care about rather than the few things people check paradigms for, so I’m basically just listing off some takes I have about debate in descending order of what’s relevant

1. I think framework is a hard argument for me to gauge myself on - by that i mean if i was going for framework in front of myself i wouldn’t know a guaranteed way to get my ballot. Two things you should know are that a) I usually vote for K affs against fw, b) I almost 100% believe framework (neg) is a true argument when I try to rationalize how I think about debate. I think the big reason for this is because framework debates are much more technically demanding of 2ns to a degree that they often aren’t accustomed to, e.g. making difficult strategic decisions on what pieces of defense to go for (counterinterp doesnt solve, switch side, tva) how to frame case answers as defense to framework, and what pieces of offense to go for/how to frame offense in a way that outweighs impacts to the neg interp. One piece of advice that might help neg policy teams against a k aff when with me in the back of the room would be to do two things: think of why the counterinterp doesnt solve their offense (justifies a bad aff/set of affs) or you can think of reasons why they dont meet their interp - i feel comfortable voting on the traditional clash good tva switch side 2nr but there is a much higher chance of you winning in front of me if you’re right that their counterinterp is bad/they dont meet it. I’ll admit my threshold for this argument is maybe lower than it should be but until i learn enough about debate to know why this arg isn’t OP against K affs ill keep voting on it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2. I’ll vote on anything but I won’t give speaks based solely on your ability to secure a dub. Obviously winning a theory argument that went conceded will win you the debate but depending on what that argument is, you may not get the best speaks for it. I think it’s important to encourage people to go for arguments that are good while also taking into account that debate is a competitive activity where people want to win and will do so however possible. How I determine the value behind particular strategies and if i think they’re good/bad for the activity is admittedly subjective, but if you flame me for it, take into account that I’ve been debating for longer than you have and my confidence in being correct will significantly overdetermine any complaints you may have. If you go for condo and give a fire speech I may even give you 29.5+ but if you make me vote on no neg fiat i probably wont give you above a 28.3. I also don’t think that I require a lot of time dedication to theory args in the last rebuttal, eg if the 2nr is 20 seconds of condo and the 2ar is at least 1 minute, i might still vote aff, which could give you the opportunity to win the rest of the debate even if i dont buy condo which will be more likely to increase speaks. This applies to other theory arguments that i would normally not give high speaks on (severence perms bad, t is an rvi, no neg fiat, advantage cps are cheating, vague alts bad)

3. If you go for death good please pref me so i can be the one to give you 0 speaks and a loss.

4. I tend to not like small affs or faux k affs. I don’t think they’re strategic against policy stuff or ks because impact framing against big das and cps is never contextual to the offense they read and you have to justify your reps against ks if they win framework anyway so you might as well at least have an impact that outweighs structural violence.

5. Policy vs K debates: I’ll just lay out what “arsenal” i think it’s best for the affirmative to have coming out of the 1ar - weighing the plan is good, the model of fiat is pedagogically valuable, 1ac impacts are real and cause harm (ideally, extinction), you should evaluate extinction before other impacts due to its irreversibility, perm do both, the thesis claims of the kritik are wrong/AT:ontology

6. Disads are great. Politics disads are even better. If I could change one thing about the things i hear in debates it would just be the allocation of time between framing arguments vs warranted analysis/cards. I think in rebuttals the actual descriptive claims you wanna go for need to be really EMPHASIZED. If I miss a piece of judge instruction in the 2nr that’s pretty low stakes but if i miss the warrant that you’re instructing me how to vote on, thats an issue.

7. CPs are kinda OP and sometimes cheating but also sometimes not. Advantage cps are valid af, process cps are ok, so are agent cps. Delay cp, courts cp, conditions cp, and multi-actor process cps are probably the most cheating, especially delay and conditions. If you’ve read this far into my paradigm I might as well say that for me to vote on theory pretty quickly, give some good examples of what kinds of cps they would justify and what they do for limits/fairness. Another thing is that most of the neg justifications to these counterplans don’t assume the way they massively abuse fiat. E.g. the authors who write lit that could theoretically check abuse for delay cps probably doesn’t assume that the only solvency deficit the aff would get would be timeframe T-(x number of days).

8. for aff teams who don't read a plantext and want to know how I feel about framework: I probably wont think that the model of debate you're likely going to forward would actually be better for the activity. That said, my win-rate for K teams against a framework 2nr is somewhere around 5-1 (not good data bc k teams usually have experience in more competitive pools but it's a stat worth considering). I think the more frustrated you make the aff at their inability to explain the utility of policy debates, the funnier, and I like giving speaks for that (plus it's a good way to preempt answers to their offense). I tend to think that the most exploitable part of k affs is the counterinterp paired with explaining why the ballot is necessary to fully realize the "impact" of the aff's critique of the topic/debate. A trend I've noticed with teams in highschool (and college) who don't read a plantext is a solid explanation of how the rest of debate operates in conjunction with the affirmative (as in not just the 1ac, but the actual iterative process of debating, plus the ballot). If you can explain to me why the affirmative is good, why debating it is good, how the negative ought to be expected to respond, and why the ballot is necessary for that, you’re in a good place to not lose

Other stuff:

1. Not everything that I or any judge tells you is necessarily good advice. I think improvement in debate is a unique and personal thing that requires a lot of self-reflection. No two people think about debate in the same way and that's part of why I like it. Implications of that: I understand that the strategy that maybe I would have chosen to execute in a debate round isn't a) the ultimate best or b) the one that fits the style of debate that you like to practice.

2. Debate is supposed to be fun. I'll never understand people who go into debates genuinely (or seemingly genuinely) upset at what they're doing. If you have fun, the round is more fun, judging is more fun, etc. Debates that are fun to watch are so much easier to deal out higher speaker points to.

3. Everything in my paradigm is true only to an extent - ****good arguments change my opinions all the time so if you think you're right about something go for it - I try to make an effort to check my biases toward particular arguments****

Try not to be problematic. Debate is a competitive space in which we all try to have fun / escape the chaos of reality, so don't bring toxic behavior into it.

-------------

:

speaks:

0-26 - you did something really shitty in round

26-27.8 - below average

27.8-28.5 - average

28.5-29 - good/great

29-29.5 - exceptional

I won't give above a 29.5 unless I'm absolutely blown away by the performance of the debater. I'm doubtful that I'll be rewarding a 30 to anyone ever

Don’t clip 0 speaks and loss.

Don’t be a dick - that was in the overview.

Don’t be rude in cross ex - that includes one partner doing all of cross ex - defo not a fan of one partner thinking they're smarter than the other.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Blue Valley Southwest 9/25/2020 Var R6 Maize DL Lawrence Free State HB Neg
Blue Valley Southwest 9/25/2020 Var R5 Lawrence Free State BO Blue Valley Northwest AD Aff
Blue Valley Southwest 9/25/2020 Var R4 Lindale JS Lawrence Free State GH Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/18/2020 Var R2 Sumner BF Wichita East NY Neg
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/18/2020 Var R1 Dodge City LN Wichita East HL Neg
KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament 1/17/2020 6A Doub 03A ST 24A FM Neg Aff on a 2-1
KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament 1/17/2020 6A R6 15C EP 22B VR Aff
KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament 1/17/2020 6A R5 18C BK 11B TF Aff
KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament 1/17/2020 6A R4 14A BL 07D SF Neg
KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament 1/17/2020 6A R2 05A HA 21A OM Aff
KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament 1/17/2020 6A R1 14C CR 17C SV Neg
East Kansas District Tournament 12/13/2019 CX R4 G Reed & Burke R Harris & Bellemere Neg Neg on a 2-1
East Kansas District Tournament 12/13/2019 CX R2 J Zimmerman & Woodcock R Rupp & Marshall Neg Neg on a 2-1
East Kansas District Tournament 12/13/2019 CX R1 G Babcock & Babcock R Basore & Huffman Aff Neg on a 2-1
KCKSNCFL Policy 12/6/2019 Var R6 Shawnee Mission South Tuohey & Henderson Mill Valley Smith & White Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKSNCFL Policy 12/6/2019 Var R5 Lansing Strickland & Strickland Blue Valley Southwest Pieropan & Helixon Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKSNCFL Policy 12/6/2019 Var R4 Blue Valley West Mehta & Das Lansing Dawson & Atkins Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKSNCFL Policy 12/6/2019 Var R2 Blue Valley Northwest Barrett & Soper Shawnee Mission South Ridge & Larsen Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKSNCFL Policy 12/6/2019 Var R1 Lansing Zimmerman & Woodcock Blue Valley Southwest Sathish & Swanson Neg Neg on a 2-1
Aaron Thomas Memorial Invitational at Mill Valley 11/15/2019 DCI Qtrs Blue Valley Northwest Alon & Ramanujan Lansing Sr Atkins & Dawson Neg Neg on a 3-0
Aaron Thomas Memorial Invitational at Mill Valley 11/15/2019 DCI R6 Lansing Sr Woodcock & Daniels Blue Valley West Jaguars Wang & Ahmed Neg
Aaron Thomas Memorial Invitational at Mill Valley 11/15/2019 Novice R5 Blue Valley North Gaffney & Eterovic Blue Valley West Jaguars Magesh & Eda Aff
Aaron Thomas Memorial Invitational at Mill Valley 11/15/2019 DCI R4 Manhattan Brockman & Delong Hutchinson Unruh & Owens Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Policy Qualifier 11/1/2019 DCI Double Barstow Amanda Munsell & Jacqueline Tingle Lansing Brett Zimmerman & Marcus Woodcock Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Policy Qualifier 11/1/2019 DCI R6 Manhattan Trinity Brockman & Sam Delong Newton Miguel Molina Chavez & Fletcher Hummingbird Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Policy Qualifier 11/1/2019 Nov R5 Kapaun Mount Carmel Audri Byers & Beatrice Kim Mill Valley Garrett Cumbie & Andrew Spellman Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Policy Qualifier 11/1/2019 DCI R4 Lansing Chloe Kautt & Maddie Souser Lawrence Free State Abbey Hossler & Rita Joseph Neg
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/20/2019 VADB8 DOFs Newton HM Maize NL Neg Neg on a 3-0
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/20/2019 VADB8 R6 Manhattan BD Blue Valley Northwest RX Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/20/2019 VADB8 R2 Little Rock Central KG Lansing Sr SS Aff
Jayhawk Debate Institute 3 Week 7/10/2019 3Wk R6 WMM Syed & Rose WMM Huffman & Strickland Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 3 Week 7/10/2019 3Wk R4 SWH Joseph & Rupp WMM Kautt & Basore Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 3 Week 7/10/2019 3Wk R3 SWH Yang & Mojica BWD Shi & Woodcock Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 2Week 7/3/2019 2Wk Quarte Duff/Henry MW Esquivel/Scott SR Aff Aff on a 3-0
Jayhawk Debate Institute 2Week 7/3/2019 2Wk R6 Cerja/Willett RP Esquivel/Scott VR Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 2Week 7/3/2019 2Wk R5 Cerja/Willett AA Fry/Saunders AC Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 2Week 7/3/2019 2Wk R4 Cerja/Willett MH Duff/Henry LA Aff
Jayhawk Debate Institute 2Week 7/3/2019 2Wk R3 Fry/Saunders PB Esquivel/Scott SR Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 2Week 7/3/2019 2Wk R2 Cerja/Willett LP Fry/Saunders ON Aff
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 Nov Quarte Blue Valley Southwest Shiza Khan & Rabiya Shoaib Barstow Caroline Fry & Megha Gunapati Aff Neg on a 2-1
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R6 Lansing Sr Dalton Buchholz & Amber Dawson Maize Amanda Branom & Jeannine Lopez Aff
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R5 SF Roosevelt Jazmyn Luckett & Jaxon Kroger Blue Valley West Supta Das & Aryan Verma Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R4 Blue Valley West April Ma & Heer Mehta Olathe East Avneet Sidhu & William Macfarland Aff
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R3 Barstow Miles Luce & Jacqueline Tingle Blue Valley Southwest Chloe Shi & Kassandra Wu Aff
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R2 Lansing Sr Salem Clemens & Madelyn Atkins Barstow Tyler Durwood & Kristin Tingle Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R1 Shawnee Mission South Arden Larsen & Cyan Ridge Olathe North Aly Shirley & Reem Atallah Neg
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX Q Univ Of Chicago Lab LP Wayzata LN Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX O West Des Moines Valley CK Blue Valley West MM Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX R6 West Des Moines Valley LB Glenbrook North KO Neg
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX R4 Dowling Catholic SS West Des Moines Valley KB Aff
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX R3 Highland Park Senior SK Barstow TD Neg
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX R2 Glenbrook North CK Rosemount SP Aff
The Iowa Caucus 10/19/2018 VCX R1 Rosemount HJ Mill Valley MO Aff
Jayhawk Debate Institute 7/4/2018 3Wk Rd6 Duff/Hartman/Martin MD Bosch/Eisenstadt/Singleton AV Neg
Jayhawk Debate Institute 7/4/2018 3Wk Rd2 Duff/Hartman/Martin HB Bosch/Eisenstadt/Singleton TI Neg