Brice Hansen ParadigmLast changed 1/18 9:33A CDT
PGPs: He/him/his, they/them/theirs (no preference)
as of 10/10/19
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my fifth year of judging/assistant coaching there. I am a math education and political science major at UW-La Crosse.
Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I would say I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, the for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go.
Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points
8 minutes prep unless a tournament says otherwise
Please include me in the email chain: email@example.com
Arguments: I will listen to just about any argument. I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are some arguments/authors I just will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):
low Speed = bad / faster speed = better
any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.
cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples
Privatization good / Privatization CPs.
Delivery: I am opposed to speed in a debate round where the 1ac/1nc is on paper and the rest of the evidence is digital. If your strategy to win depends on the quantity of arguments you get out as opposed to the quality of your arguments while making it harder for your opponents to flow, read, and keep up with you, your round is likely not to be very educational in the real world. In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, so just like don't do that, you're better than that.
When on a panel I tend to disregard these preferences to a degree, but would still like to be included in an email chain.
Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs and kritikal affs, I don't have much experience with them but I've voted for them before. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework fight. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff.
Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.
Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.
Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and chances are I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the 2nr nor the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.
In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless you are trying to make an actual point about acronyms or the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rule monger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question.
DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.
CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.
Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I'll admit I have Marxist/anarcho-communist sympathies so I'll typically understand K's down those paths. However, I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, let's make it constructive though.
Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I have issues with topical CP's, as I see those as pro-resolution which is pretty unfair to aff ground. If your CP version of the plan is better than the aff but is obviously still topical, I'll struggle to not vote for perm: do the CP if it's brought up; as I see it, the neg's job is to not be the aff. That's not to say you can't make the case for it, there are plenty of legitimate arguments for running topical CPs, I just expect some Theory defense on why it's justified in this particular situation.
Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.
When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.
Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is how I will be evaluating the round. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.
If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious. If you say warming good you still need to read impact evidence and I will probably laugh with disappointment in you and our education system, I will still flow the argument but not with high regard/merit for it.
Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.
Saying Cap good is gonna take some work for me
Crack some jokes and talk with the other team before round; it's a competition but you're all presumably cool people if you're in debate. (but if like the other team makes you feel uncomfortable or talking to strangers is overly stressful or anxiety inducing like I get it, it's not a necessary obligation and doesn't affect your speaks)