Jack Rankin ParadigmLast changed 11/5 8:15A CDT
I am a fourth year debater at MBA. I have debated in plenty of rounds on the Immigration topic, so I am familiar with the topic.
Below is some useful information that I know I would look for when checking a judge's philosophy, but I try to judge mainly off the flow and the debating that occurs in round. That being said, good evidence helps and is important.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Fairness is an impact. Defending the resolution is always a good idea in front of me. Beating the AFF's case and theories about the world always helps. It isn't impossible to beat framework with me in the back because I'll judge these debates off the flow. A couple of smart and logical arguments from either side can change these debates.
I'm down for whatever technical T debate you want. But AFF teams under-utilize substantive crowd-out as offense and reasonability.
Condo is generally good, but I am down for a technical theoretical debate. Most types of CP theory arguments are dumb, but again, you have to win the flow.
The AFF has to disprove the internal links to disads before probability framing makes sense. 1% risk of racism is an illogical argument. Solvency deficits on CPs need to be impacted out to outweigh the NEG's offense. If the CP solves the whole AFF, most framing arguments don't make sense.
Full Judging Record
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||6 R6||USN CL||Woodward TP||Aff|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||4 R4||Woodward SS||Isidore Newman EP||Neg|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||2 R2||Marist HM||Woodward FC||Aff|
|Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament||1547265600 1/12/2019||NCX||1 R1||USN CW||Alpharetta HS GN||Neg|