Nate Galang Paradigm

Last changed 2/25 5:41P CDT

Short version

Put me on the email chain: j.galang.0819@gmail.com

Conflicts: Klein HS, Seven Lakes HS, McMillen NG, Jack C. Hays HB, Village AI

Pref shortcut

K (high theory): 1

LARP: 1 or 2

Phil: 2

Theory: 3

K (identity politics): 3

Tricks: 4

5 minutes before the round

I will evaluate any argument that:

a. Has a warrant

b. Does not render debate unsafe

It would be helpful if you do these things:

1. Pop tags, author names, and pause at the end of cards or when switching between sheets. It makes speeches so much easier to follow.

2. Slow down on interps, standard/role of the ballot texts, and advocacy texts. I don't think anyone will but if you do I'll appreciate it a lot and might bump speaks a tiny bit.

3. Give me a ballot story at the end of the round.

Long version

Background

I debated for Klein from 2014 to 2018, starting with PF in freshman year and switching to LD halfway through sophomore year. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and octofinaled at TFA.

I went for a few different styles of arguments, primarily high-theory kritiks, social contract theory, and soft-left policy affirmatives.

General

Explain and over-explain your arguments. If you give me contextual, comparative analysis and weighing, it'll make it easier for me to understand your arguments (and it will probably help your speaks).

If something doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't evaluate it. I don't look at speech docs during the round. This doesn't mean every word has to be crystal-clear or that you can't make fast arguments, it just means that if you are going to make blippy arguments, delineate between them well enough that I can catch a warrant in the few seconds you spend making each argument.

Tech > truth unless you say something that's outright false.

LARP/Policy arguments Plan + Advantage(s)

This was my a-strat most of senior year. I mostly read soft-left affs, but if you want to go for three extinction scenarios then do your thing.

Develop a ballot story for the plan. Explain how the plan resolves the specific harms raised in the advantage(s) and collapse to/expand upon specific warrants in later speeches.

Good solvency wins ballots. If you have good empirical solvency with well-explained reasons why your evidence is contextual to the topic and solves the advantage(s), you'll have a good time.

DA/CP

I'm good with this. Please don't go for everything in the 2NR. Give a good explanation of the overall DA story and how it turns/outweighs/interacts with the case. Similarly, give a good 2NR explanation of how the CP solves the case especially if the advocacy is some obscure policy.

Since my background is in LD, I will evaluate CP theory to a far greater degree than a lot of people with policy backgrounds. I'll evaluate things like one condo CP bad, one dispo CP bad, etc.

Kritiks

This is what I did most often in high school. I read mostly high-theory kritiks and also some stock kritiks like cap. The authors I'm most familiar with are Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Weheliye, and Bataille (a little bit). I'm not as fond of identity politics and it was never what I read during high school, but I think there can be excellent rounds on identity politics.

I like any and all K debate done well. By extension, bad K debate will make me really sad. Don't read a K just because it's what I like. I would much rather see you read something you like and read it well than read the K poorly.

If the 2NR has a really long overview with a ton of embedded clash, don't be surprised if you're not happy with how I resolve the debate. Do the work on the line-by-line and implicate arguments on specific sheets to resolve clash instead of reading a 4-minute overview that your coach wrote for you.

Explain what your author says. Don't rely on my prior knowledge of your author to substitute for your explanation. Don't expect me to examine speech docs to try and piece together what your argument was saying after the round. I need to understand your version of the argument.

Phil

I did a decent amount of this my senior year. Some phil debate, especially all-analytic frameworks, is really hard to flow. Try to delineate between arguments clearly and give me time to catch up when you're blazing through analytics.

Similar to what I wrote on K debate, don't assume I know what your author says and give your own explanation of the argument.

Theory

Theory is fine. I don't care whether you use theory to check abuse or if you just use it as a strategic tool.

Give a clear abuse story. Unified analysis in terms of how you approach answering the counter-interp and developing offense on the interp will make evaluating the round way easier.

I don't think I should ever have to have "defaults" on theory because you should be implicating everything in the shell. But I'll default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater.

Delineate between arguments to make them easier to follow. Theory debates are really fast so please try to minimize how blippy you are.

If you're extemping theory, you should pre-write your interp.

Weigh early with theory, especially since you often have fewer speeches on theory (i.e. if it gets introduced in the 1AR). Make them count and make sure that I know how different standards interact as quickly as possible.

Disclosure

I think that disclosure is probably good in general. If you're from a big school or you have bids, you basically have no excuse for not disclosing.

I'm sympathetic to small schools not disclosing. I was the only LDer from my school and I disclosed, but I get why not everyone would want to.

Tricks

Be honest about your arguments. I don't like the sketchy kind of tricks debate that happens where people are super evasive in CX. If you want to go for presumption/permissibility triggers that's fine, but don't intentionally make arguments unclear in order to gain an advantage. If you do, you will probably be unhappy with how I render my decision.

Misc

If you make me laugh I'll probably bump your speaks. Don't be mean pls

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 LDRR Quarte Newark Science OS Anderson SJ Neg Neg on a 2-1
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 LDRR R5 Harrison EL Strake Jesuit BE Neg Neg on a 2-0
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 LDRR R4 Quarry Lane SK Anderson SJ Neg
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 LDRR R3 Newark Science SB Harrison AZ Neg Neg on a 2-0
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 LDRR R2 James Bowie TW Newark Science OS Aff Aff on a 2-0
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 LDRR R1 Northland Christian JQ Strake Jesuit BE Neg Neg on a 2-0
King Round Robin 3/29/2019 PFD R1 DucAca DL HorMan MK Neg Neg on a 2-0
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD Q LC Anderson SJ Southlake Carroll SM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD O Prosper AA George Ranch MS Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD D Episcopal School Of Dallas ZH Northland Christian ABa Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R5 Cypress Woods AK Village AF Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R5 Cypress Ranch MZ Prosper AA Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R4 Elkins KP Coppell LK Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R4 Village AP Timber Creek GJ Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R3 Newman Smith YG Westwood SM Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R2 Plano East WZ Marcus KL Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R2 Lovejoy CM Cabot CH Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R1 Round Rock SG Cabot LH Aff
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/1/2019 VLD R1 UT IB Prosper KS Aff
Strake Jesuit Tournament 12/21/2018 VLD LDD George Ranch MS CTCS NS Aff Aff on a 3-0
Strake Jesuit Tournament 12/21/2018 VLD LD4 McNeil KK James Bowie TW Neg
Strake Jesuit Tournament 12/21/2018 VLD LD3 DULLES RY UT IB Neg
Strake Jesuit Tournament 12/21/2018 VLD LD2 Montgomery DH Cypress Woods AK Aff
Strake Jesuit Tournament 12/21/2018 VLD LD1 Cypress Woods AZ Carnegie Vanguard AB Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD Octs Strake Jesuit College Prep CR Carroll Senior TR Aff Aff on a 2-1
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD Double Strake Jesuit College Prep JH Carroll Senior SM Neg Aff on a 2-1
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD Double Tuloso-Midway JS Strake Jesuit College Prep AM Neg Aff on a 2-1
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD Triple McNeil KK Strake Jesuit College Prep VL Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD R5 Garland KP Strake Jesuit College Prep AM Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD R4 Strake Jesuit College Prep JPo Prosper JR Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD R3 Westside SH Incarnate Word NG Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD R2 Garland IR Prosper IP Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas 12/7/2018 LD R2 Strake Jesuit College Prep BE Cypress Woods MT Aff