Brandon Boyce ParadigmLast changed 10/28 1:59A CDT
Currently a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I debated for KU for a bit in college and at Emporia High in high school. I am pretty comfortable with most types of debate and will listen to almost anything in rounds.
Include me in Flashing and emails. Also email me for questions after the round if you have any.
Speed- Any speed is fine. I debated mostly fast rounds but am willing to judge lay rounds as well. Do not go fast to accommodate for me if you can not pull it off. It will reflect poorly on your speaks. I will say clear twice for any 1 speech and if you do not fix the issue I will not attempt to flow what I can not understand.
Disads- I believe that a DA needs to have some external impact to the plan and should interact with the aff's advantages. I find DA's to be the easiest way to win a debate. Generic links are fine as long as you can relate them to the aff through analysis. Turns case arguments are very promising for the negative team.
Counterplans- They have to be competitive. Advantage CP's are fine but unless you are winning an impact turn to the rest of the aff it's hard to win. Negative teams have to prove why the perm doesn't work contextualized to the aff and counterplan. I also need some time of net benefit to pull the trigger. As a competitor I won with CP theory a lot and have voted for it many times.
Kritiks- I'm fine if you read them but I'd like you to explain them. I am a fan of security, neolib, and biopower. I am almost 100% not voting for a Baudrillard K unless it is conceded by the aff. I also am unconvinced by death good arguments. Link debate needs to be good on the K flow. I'm a fan of permutation arguments on the K flow and will probably lean aff on that side of the debate. I will vote on linear DA's. Alt Solvency needs to be proved to me, I as a judge will not take a "leap of faith" for the alternative. I find rejection alternatives awful and there is a low chance of me voting for it.
Theory-I love theory debate. As a competitor, I went for theory several times and am extremely willing to vote for it. Perm theory is compelling, perf con is a voting issue, and so is most CP theory. I am not likely to vote on condo, but it is possible. It's an uphill battle for anything less than 3 condo advocacies but after 3 it starts to become viable. Dropped theory is a pretty big deal so if you concede a theoretical reason to the reject the team then the debate is probably over. If you go for theory in 2A/2N you need to have explained impacts on the debate world.
T/FW- I mostly believe affs should attempt to be topical and should probably read a plantext. It is the neg's job to prove a violation not the affirmatives to prove they are topical. Tell me how to frame the T flow and I will listen to you. Standards debate is really underrated and needs to be a focal point of the debate if you're going for T. Voting issues are also important to me, I find debate is a competitive and educational activity and love to see people read external impacts to education.
Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.
25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).
26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.
27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.
28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.
28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.
29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.
30: You were godly.
Clever arguments are the best arguments. I enjoy jokes so make me laugh please. Be respectful to the other team. Have a good debate!
Full Judging Record
|Jack Howe Memorial Tournament||1600520400 9/19/2020||O CX||10 Semi||Cypress Bay LL||Interlake FG||Aff||Aff on a 2-1|
|Washburn Rural Debate Invitational||1569009600 9/20/2019||VADB8||3 R3||Blue Valley Southwest SK||Manhattan BD||Neg|
|Greenhill Fall Classic||1505566800 9/16/2017||CX||7 Double||McQueen RR||Cabot BS||Aff||Aff on a 3-0|
|Greenhill Fall Classic||1505566800 9/16/2017||CX||6 R6||Glenbrook North FF||Peninsula JK||Aff|
|Greenhill Fall Classic||1505566800 9/16/2017||CX||5 R5||Liberal Arts and Science BW||Wayzata KP||Aff|
|Greenhill Fall Classic||1505566800 9/16/2017||CX||4 R4||Kinkaid PS||McQueen CR||Aff|