Artem Sviridov Paradigm

Last changed 9/25 3:41P EDT

Background:

I am a former student debater with the University of Miami Varsity Parliamentary Debate team, I have also been judging policy high school tournaments for 6 years now.

A Note on PF/World Schools and other lay formats:

Although I am usually a tech judge, when the format dictates a lay judge I will judge as a lay judge. That means that if you spread or run a K in a PF round, you will be dropped. LD I dont consider a lay format, so go all out if you wish.

General Notes:

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me.

Signposting is good, fully flushing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to me missing something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong team line upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, dont expect me to tie your loose ends for you, thats a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flush out your arguments, if you dont give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I wont judge on it.

Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it sure wont win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: CP's are always fun, but remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+ or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional args is abusive and will be judged down.

Kritik: Another very fun thing to judge, make sure to explain your K well. Dont just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Keep in mind that I am generally not a fan of heavy-theory rounds, any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: NO NEW ARGUMENTATION IN THE LAST TWO SPEECHES. New argumentation wont be judged on and will heavily influence speaker points. The only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, that said its a fine line, so tread carefully.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer, avoid interruptions if possible.

Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, dont use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will generally limit myself to 25-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). Generally my points will fall somewhere along a standard distribution curve, so 26-28 on average. In general I will look at the following in no particular order: Technical proficiency, argumentation, clarity, engagement with opposition arguments, jokes/puns (we all like to laugh every once in a while).

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
The Bear Cat Swing CyWoodsBridgeland 9/23/2020 NCX R2 Kinkaid MS Barbers Hill MR Aff
The Bear Cat Swing CyWoodsBridgeland 9/23/2020 NCX R1 Pasadena HC Kinkaid EH Aff
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK 9/12/2020 PD RS R4 College Prep YG Altamont AY Neg
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK 9/12/2020 PD N R2 SMELKO DEBATE ACADEMY DL ADL CH Aff
National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK 9/12/2020 PD N R1 ADL HS Montgomery Bell MB Aff
Crestian Policy Classic 2/12/2020 NOV R5 Pine Crest HI Carrollton Scho FA Aff
Crestian Policy Classic 2/12/2020 NOV R3 Niles West KI Pine Crest HI Aff
The Tradition 11/9/2019 CX R4 Gulliver Prep VL North Broward Prep AR Neg
The Tradition 11/9/2019 CX R3 North Broward Prep GG Pine Crest ER Aff
The Tradition Cypress Bay 11/10/2018 CX R6 North Broward Prep FG Pine Crest Prep TK Aff
The Tradition Cypress Bay 11/10/2018 NCX R4 Gulliver Prep Lopez & Levine North Broward Prep King & Pearlman Aff
The Tradition Cypress Bay 11/10/2018 CX R2 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart DP Pine Crest Prep ER Aff
The Tradition Cypress Bay 11/10/2018 NCX R1 Tampa Prep Delvecchio & Reens Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart Alia-Arias & Perez Neg
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 CX R3 Marist TU Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart MD Neg
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 CX R2 Henry W. Grady WN Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart DB Aff
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 NCX R1 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart Joseph & Giustini Christopher Columbus Mackle & Lasaga Aff
The Tradition 11/12/2016 NCX R4 North Broward Prep GK Carrollton DB Neg
The Tradition 11/12/2016 NCX R3 Pine Crest GG Carrollton GJ Neg