Jada Stinnett Paradigm

Last changed 10/23 11:21A PDT

Last Updated: 10/23/19 for Meadows

Conflicts: Palo Verde HS, Woodlands HS, University HS, UNLV

I would like to be on the email chain stinnett.jada@gmail.com

Number of Rounds I judged this year (HSPD): 6

Number of Rounds I judged this year (CPD): 8

*Over all Ideas that I have about debate*

I like all styles of debate.

I believe that debate is a fun game we play.

Why we play the game is different for everyone.

I believe that everyone should have fun playing it.

This is especially true for novice debate. I think sometimes we forget we all had a first day.

What this means is that I will make it a priority to keep the spaces I'm involved in safe.

I will acknowledge the material implications of some bodies in certain spaces, so I will not police the debate space or conform to respectability politics of ANY tournament.

I will try my best to make this space accessible for you. Let me know what I can do (this can include an email before the round).

Technical debate is good debate.

A true argument can beat a bunch of silly arguments.

An Argument is a claim with a warrant. I will only flow claims with warrants.

I will not listen to impact turns of oppression. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.

Don't use slurs outside of your social location. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.

I don't want to judge a debate based off of what happened outside of the round. It becomes really awkward for everyone. And I can't adequately attest these truth claims. Just don't do it. Please.

I flow on paper- you will never be "too fast", you might be unclear.

I will try to adjust my positioning in the room- like moving closer, before I ask you to become clearer. So don't get worried if you see me moving my seat.

Spreading is a strategy used to create Layers to an argument in a small amount of time. If you are just fast without adding dimension to your argument then you are dong it wrong and should stop.

I am very expressive, you can tell if I like your argument or if you are winning an argument.

This is an experience for me just as much as it is for you so I like to feel involved in the space.

I understand adapting to judges, but from personal experience you can win in front of any critic doing what you do best.

I am open to adjusting my judging style/practice in nearly anyway that is asked of me.

I will not be offended if you ask me about my familiarity with topic specific acronyms/specific arguments. PLEASE DO SO. I want to know what you're talking about.

Other things:

AFF: You should be "topical", what that means is up for debate. Does that mean in the direction of the topic? Does that mean USFG action? IDK you tell me. But criticizing the "norms" of debate without relation to the topic is iffy for me and in my opinion a negative argument. If you have a justification for it go ahead because I will be evaluating the debate based off my flow anyway, but I am sympathetic to T/Framework Arguments. But don't be discouraged I have read/do read/coach teams to read "non-topical" affirmatives and understand the strategic choice behind doing so. That non-topical affirmative MUST do something.

Case Debate:

The status squo is always an option. Please don't forget the art of case debate. This goes beyond just impact defense. Don't be afraid for a good Impact Turn debate I'm all for a warming good, econ decline good, bio D loss good, ect debate.

T/Framework:

I wholeheartedly believe that you can say the state can do a particular policy action, and that single instance is good for x amount of people, without defending the other terrible shit the state has done. Example, Welfare is probably a good thing. Yes there is problems with who gets it, but a world with out it is probably worse. I also believe that wiki disclosures is good defense against predictability claims. I also believe that some teams don't even make an attempt at engagement and some framework shells are written with the intent to never have k debates exist. That's probably a fucked up thing to defend. Don't let that be you. Nonetheless, T debates are dope. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. It will never be a reverse voter. It will never be genocide. You have to have a TVA. Your standards need to be impacted out or else they are just internal links and idk what to do with that. I will not vote on potential abuse. I want to see the blood on the flow. Where did they make the game unfair for you. I think the more specific the evidence/examples the better.

DA:

Impact framing and comparisons are major key. I'm cool with Generics DA's as long as your links are baller, but the more unique the DA the better. I believe in a 1% risk of a link. I also believe in a 0% risk of an impact.

CP:

I'm all for a good counterplan. 2nc counterplans are cool. 2nc amendments are cool. For me to vote on a CP you need to be super good on the case debate and differentiating the perm. Be clear on the CP text so I can flow it and also establish competition and better evaluate the argument. The states counter plan is definitely a legitimate strategy and should be protected at all cost.

K:

I'm most familiar with argumentation in critical race theory, gender and sexuality args and identity/performance based arguments but this doesn't mean I won't listen to what you have to say if those things aren't your jazz. Reading is Fundamental. I read a lot of debate related jazz so I will most likely know what you are talking about. I expect college debaters to also be well read. My patience increases with hs debaters learning about different arguments, none the less you should still be reading. I cannot stress this enough. Reading is imperative. My hs kids have taken a liking to old french dudes so I have tried by best as an educator to familiarize myself with that field of literature to be a better coach. I will give you that same respect as an adjudicator if I don't understand your criticism. I believe engagement and contextualizing your theory with your opponents arguments gets you a long way. Explain what the alt does. I think far too often this explanation is missing from the debate. I don't believe in just voting on links (I say this, but as I think about it you can go for links as disads to the case...idk convince me). You have to find a way to resolve those for me. Also "root cause" arguments are not links, they are just alt solvency evidence.

I don't believe in Fem IR criticisms or other white fem bullshit.

THEORY:

Don't read theory args as a time skew. The aff gets a perm unless you say why. Conditionality: The neg can do whatever they want as long as the positions don't contradict, and they make a decision in the 2nr. I will not judge kick for you. You need to make a decision. Not here for cheap shots. I really don't want to have to judge a theory debate but I understand abuse and am willing to vote on it. If you plan on going for a theory argument, a substantial amount of time needs to be spent on it in the rebuttal. SPEC arguments are the worst thing to happen to debate and I will buy anything the 2a says if its remotely responsive. SPEC arguments are also the shittiest thing to lose on and I will vote on it if asked in cross x to spec something reasonable and you are a dick about it. As said before, I don't like performative contradictions. This also just applies to the rounds that i'm in. I don't care that the person reading framework against you also reads a k aff. It's a game. they picked a strategy that's going to win them the game.

CX:

Is binding. Is a speech. I'll write notes during this time. Please Answer questions. Don't be sketchy, I'll know it. Don't be afraid to point out if your opponents are being sketchy.

cheating:

Do not Fabricate evidence. It's inexcusable. Do not clip cards. its inexcusable.

Challenges of card clipping will result in stopping the debate if material evidence is provided that proves beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that card clipping has occurred. the offending team will receive a loss and the offending speaker will receive 0 speaker points. however if i conclude that the speaker is not guilty of clipping cards the challenging team will receive a loss and both challenging speakers will receive 0 speaker points.

***clipping cards is not a slurring of words or clack of clarity***

Evidence:

I'm from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the debate. Denial to share citations or disclose is a bitch move. Prepared debate is good debate. Don't get this confused with breaking new, that's all fine.

Prep/Speaking Times:

MY TIME IS THE RIGHT TIME AND THE ONLY TIME THAT MATTERS. I don't count flashing or emailing as prep. Flex prep is not a thing(you cannot use cross-x as prep or time to give another speech). Speak in your assigned time slots (interpret this vaguely. It just means 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. idc the order) unless for some performative or ethical reason that you can't (For example, if both debaters speak during the 1AC cool. There was a reason for it. Probably performative. In the rebuttal to continue the performance? Cool. Have a debater take over the line by line? Not Cool. This is a clear shift in the competitive aspect and nature of the game. Unless for some reason a debater disappears/goes missing...why would this happen? shit idk, but unusual things happen all the time)

Clarification questions during prep is okay. But don't try to make "a point". If you happen to be a team on the receiving end of someone trying to tear down your argument during prep, please refuse to answer.

Speaks:

I'll hook everyone up with speaks #PointFairy

I understand the joy of speaker awards and I will do my best to help y'all out.

I evaluate speaks of by delivery>argument choice. the team with the better Argument choice will most likely win win the round.

You'll get a 30 if you are just baller, or make me laugh uncontrollably. (I enjoy witty jokes, and I'm a big sports fan if that helps you come up with material)

+0.2 if you make a joke about me

+0.3 for every KD joke

(I haven't made up my mind if I will put a cap on jokes or not, so be a comedian at the risk of knowing you might not be rewarded for all the jokes)

when making analytical arguments I would advise going for the easiest pen to paper phrasing

How I make my Decisions:

I use the burden of rejoinder frame to structure how I evaluate debates.

I hold a strict line with new arguments in the rebuttals so a majority of my time will be lining up arguments.

In clash debates the easiest framing for me is whats most educational and best for the community.

I dislike students who try to post round. This has only happened to me twice. None the less I will not tolerate it. I am also willing to admit that I am wrong. But that will not change my decision. If the understanding that I get form your argument happens in a post round and not in a debate, I cannot reward you for communicating your point late in the game. This is a communication activity and if something didn't reach my flow like how you intended there isn't much I can do but listen and process to the best of my ability. If you think I made the wrong decision that's fine and you are completely entitled to feel that way. It does not change the fact that you loss.

Mics/Things you might wanna know about me:

I am black, and Queer.

pronouns: they/them

I have a very personal relationship to the college topic

You all can call me Jada you don't have to say judge

I was a 2n

I'm a Dog Mom

#FUCKDONALDTRUMP #ALLBLACKLIVESMATTER

I have a real pet peeve with what is considered violence in debate

I don’t fuck with people who lie about sexual assault

You can insert re highlighting- you don't have to reread the card

If you wanna talk about college debate I'm here(I debated for UNLV) or I can get you in touch with someone from a program you are interested in.

Quotes from People in The Community about me:

"Super smart and a great person all around" Allego Wang

"Incredibly intelligent + really good at explaining difficult concepts" Ali saffieddine

"Their ability to compartmentalize argumentation and overall communication skills are ones I've always aspired to have and continue to grow from simple conversations I have with them. Jada's ability to empathize with students and find the grammar to communicate in ways to accommodate students needs and comprehension skills is one of the many talented characteristics they have. They will really be personal to you and your needs, with flares of individual organic wisdom they've learned over the years. They will not just lecture you. They will help you on your path to education/understanding difficult literature bases by shining light at your strengths and guiding you to find solutions to your weaknesses. Legit, Jada is one of the most influential person I've been blessed to come across" Yumasie Hellebuick

"You're the 50 cent of this community" -Chris Randall

"Jada is the love of my life" - Caitlin Walrath

"I told ppl to pref u just cuz you’re not afraid to stare a k team down and say “yea I voted on nuke war outweighs” with a smile ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" -Ari Davidson

"Jada makes the best memes" JV Soccer Captain and my Teammate Dan Bannister

These are my jams at the moment do with that what you will:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xb3zQfJfNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ6AW9ZK-o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtgbOP4hj_o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxXWrksx9g0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDfsD6G8E_g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgDlmPaDxLA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GbwYFqN1iE

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Nov Final Navy YC Purdue AM Aff Aff on a 2-1
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Open R7 Binghamton DM Michigan State PS Neg
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Open R6 Boston College DV UC Berkeley MO Neg
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Open R5 West Georgia DS Arizona State FG Aff
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 JV R4 Navy MY Iowa ST Neg
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Open R3 UC Berkeley RN Kansas SP Aff
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Open R2 Concordia HW Georgetown AW Neg
JW Patterson Debates at Kentucky 9/28/2019 Open R1 Georgetown GR Kansas DB Neg
Telegraph Season Closer 5/25/2019 LD R4 113 110 Aff
Telegraph Season Closer 5/25/2019 LD R2 105 107 Aff
Telegraph Season Closer 5/25/2019 LD R1 107 111 Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX Double Green Valley WK Polytechnic DN Neg Neg on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R6 Green Valley KS Berkeley Prep KZ Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R5 Classical MM Harvard-Westlake GK Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R4 McQueen RR Los Irvine LA Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R3 St Francis SN Bingham TH Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R2 St George's CR Chaminade CP HK Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/2/2019 VCX R1 Chaminade PQ Davis Senior MK Neg
Panther Classic Palo Verde HS 1/25/2019 JVLDB SF AG 3328 AE 3308 Neg
Panther Classic Palo Verde HS 1/25/2019 VCX R3 AZ 505 AH 504 Neg
Panther Classic Palo Verde HS 1/25/2019 VCX R2 AH 501 AM 503 Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 NCX QF BASIS Chandler SM Hamilton JP Aff Aff on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 NCX R6 Advanced Technologies Acad CB Hamilton JP Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VCX R5 SLC West BN Green Valley LS Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VCX R4 Hamilton AS Kent Denver RT Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VCX R3 Polytechnic DN Kent Denver CS Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VCX R2 SLC West RG Harker SB Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VCX R1 BASIS Chandler DW St Francis KV Neg
The Meadows Tournament 10/26/2018 Pol R6 Rowland Hall PC CK McClatchy GB Neg
The Meadows Tournament 10/26/2018 Pol R5 St Francis KP Davidson Academy Of Nevada KH Aff
The Meadows Tournament 10/26/2018 Pol R4 CK McClatchy MS College Prep BG Neg
The Meadows Tournament 10/26/2018 Pol R3 McQueen CL Davis Senior WN Aff
The Meadows Tournament 10/26/2018 Pol R2 Rosemont JM Interlake NT Neg
The Meadows Tournament 10/26/2018 Pol R1 Notre Dame KP St Francis SR Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 N CX Semi Gulliver Prep CG Northwood FF Neg Neg on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 N CX R4 Peninsula RS Northwood ZI Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 O CX R3 Lowell WY McQueen LC Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 O CX R2 Presentation RV CK McClatchy MS Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 O CX R1 South East EM Green Valley WK Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD Double Harker KS Quarry Lane SK Neg Neg on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD Double Brentwood HG Northwood Independent KK Neg Neg on a 3-0
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R6 Beckman KM Harvard-Westlake AL Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R5 La Salle AT Brentwood EL Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R5 Dougherty Valley PT Harvard-Westlake AG Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R4 Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas AR Meadows DH Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R3 Rowland Hall LA Saratoga UK Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R3 Harvard-Westlake SM La Reina AC Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R2 Park City HS ZP Brophy CP NK Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R2 Marlborough ST Brentwood WJ Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R1 Eagle ON Harvard-Westlake IP Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/3/2018 VLD R1 Harvard-Westlake AM Marlborough ZW Neg
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol R5 St Francis GN Rowland Hall-St Mark HD Aff
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol R4 Salt Lake City West BK Polytechnic MG Neg
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol R3 Northwood Independent LL Green Valley SW Neg
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol R2 Green Valley LS Interlake HS - Bellevue JB Aff
The Meadows School Invitational 10/27/2017 Pol R1 Interlake HS - Bellevue LC East PJ Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX Quart CK McClatchy LP Chaminade CP AT Aff Aff on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX Octo McQueen RC S. Eugene H. S LS Neg Neg on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R6 College Prep NW Oakland Tech BP Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R4 Chaminade CP AT Notre Dame CP Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 O CX R3 St George's GV Notre Dame PM Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 8/1/2017 CX R6 BLRS Lab Ghantae & Peramanu BHT Lab Jacobs & He Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 8/1/2017 CX R5 BHT Lab Shi & Vincent GMMS Lab Reddy & Patel Aff
SDI 4 Week Tournament 8/1/2017 CX R4 Hybrid Kwon & Tathgir GMMS Lab Ajani & Jones Aff
SDI 4 Week Tournament 8/1/2017 CX R3 BLRS Lab Mehta & Mehta GMMS Lab Shaik & Uppuluri Aff
SDI 4 Week Tournament 8/1/2017 CX R2 GMMS Lab Patil & Yang GMMS Lab Pierce & Smith Neg
SDI 4 Week Tournament 8/1/2017 CX R1 GMMS Lab Malhotra & Safieddine BLRS Lab Bahiji & Smith Aff
SDI 3 Week Tournament 7/26/2017 CX R6 EER Lab Reddy & Swiston EER Lab Noel & Johnston Aff
SDI 3 Week Tournament 7/26/2017 CX R5 NNP Lab Wang & Lu EER Lab Yim & Papoutsis Neg
SDI 3 Week Tournament 7/26/2017 CX R4 EER Lab Jamal & Cameron EER Lab Wearden & DiVito Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 PF Quarte Mission San Jose Gupta & Maunder Fairmont Prep Kim & Singh Aff Aff on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 NCX Finals Hillcrest OH West KB Aff Aff on a 3-0
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX Double Robert McQueen RR Polytechnic OW Aff Aff on a 2-1
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX R6 College Prep BP Milpitas DT Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 PF R5 California HS - Whittier Murillo & Zarate Harker Banke & Pan Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 PF R5 Brophy Gonzalez & Vaughn Harker Su & Song Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX R4 Eagle BE Centennial MT Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX R3 Denverlake Independent RL Harker HK Aff
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX R2 College Prep SP Polytechnic HM Neg
Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV 2/4/2017 VCX R1 Harker SL Polytechnic OW Neg
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX Double Gulliver Prep MP Skyline AH Neg Neg on a 3-0
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX R6 Sonoma HS Park City HS Debate AH Aff
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX R5 Skyline AH Gulliver Prep MP Aff
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX R4 Skyline SD Sky View AH Aff
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX R3 Sonoma VK Highland BG Aff
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX R2 Copper Hills MB Harker KH Neg
Alta Silver and Black 12/1/2016 CX R1 Highland RJ Polytechnic HM Neg