"Trill recognize trill shalt be the whole of the law." - me
Last Updated - NANO NAGLE CLASSIC '21
This is at the top because I know it's why you're here - the tier list for framework 2NR tricks/impacts follows:
S: “Clash turns and outweighs the case because persuasion and complex thinking/research skills” - nothing beats the truth.
A: “Procedural fairness means no incentive to research the aff or play the game” - almost as true as the above, but not quite imo.
B: Skills/topic ed, I guess.
C: Literally anything else, shouting random buzzwords about third/fourth level testing without explanation of what that means.
FF: “Fairness means you can't evaluate the aff because it hasn't been tested yet,” “small schools” (I will almost certainly not vote on either)
VERY IMPORTANT: Before the debate, all teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during debater prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks for everyone in the room (+0.2). Surprise me. For reference, my favorite album is a tie between The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill and Appetite for Destruction, with The Shape of Jazz to Come close behind.
Policy 2021-22 - Water - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-4KiszXxHM first 16 seconds.
LD SO21 - WTO - None of you deserve a topic this good. My policy teams weep. Hell, I weep. Competition law is boring.
who the hell is patrick
Jack C Hays '19, UH Debate '23 - I debate with Gabby and/or Brett and was part of the first UH team to qualify to the NDT in a while ('21).
I have hearing damage in one ear. Try and position yourself to my right.
Conflicts of Interest
Consultant for Westside High School's policy team, mainly working with Westside KS. Currently coach Garland LY, Westlake AK, Perry JA, Cooper City NR, Los Altos BF, Dutchtown/DTHS HV and Northern Valley JS in LD. Previously coached Princeton TK (very briefly) and Memorial DX. Graduated from Jack C Hays HS in 2019.
Don't call me "judge" or any other honorific please. Patrick is fine. Fox is fine if you don't wanna call me Patrick.
Debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion. I am an educator who's job it is to adjudicate the competitive aspect of the activity and enable progression of the students in all the other aspects. There are two teams (or debaters), and they are the only people taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on the arguments made by the debaters within tournament set speech and prep times, and I will submit a decision with one winner and loser. If you try and tell me that anything outside of this is "binding" on my "jurisdiction" as a judge, you are blatantly incorrect and I will deeply resent you trying to tell me how to do my job.
Racism, sexism, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and will be penalized with speaker points, the ballot, and possibly a visit to tabroom or your coach. Which of these it is is entirely up to my discretion based on the severity of the offense - let it be known, however, I have historically been much more lenient on the specific issue of misgendering competitors. This stance was a mistake which I will not replicate in the future, and I will be harshly penalizing it in the future.
You are high school students. I do not want to see or perceive anything NSFW. Keep it PG-13(ish).
tl;dr: do what you want if you're good at it.
Tech over truth, but I exceedingly find that in technically close debates, truth tiebreaks my decision - I'd rather hear one good argument than five terrible ones. If I can't explain all three parts of an argument back to you (claim, warrant, impact) based on the debate, its not part of my decision.
I'm very expressive. Read my non-verbals.
I worked with JD Sanford and Aimun Khan in HS, and work with Rob Glass, James Allan, and Richard Garner in college. I like(d) debating in front of Scott Harris, Philip DiPiazza, and Arun Sharma. I like judging with Eric Schwertfeger, who happens to also be my boss.
I have a background in journalism so I love dense, technical research and value good evidence, but if your cards are really good you should tell me why and not expect me to pick up on it - I will read lots of cards after the round, but ideally only to confirm the 2N/AR's explanation of evidence (not to figure out what it said for myself).
0% risk isn't a thing but if there's negligible risk of the aff vs the DA I'm inclined to just not vote for you - defense is good (but turning case is better). Impact turns are underutilized, as debaters are cowards. Courage will be rewarded.
Ideal 2NR on a DA articulates a clear warrant for turns case as well as an external impact, and does a lot of work on comparative risk. Uniqueness > link, because nothing else makes sense.
The Rider DA is an abomination. Anything else in politics world is fair play.
Well-researched (so ConCon and consult don't count) process CPs are literally my favorite args. I'm serious.
Broadly speaking, in CP debates I err heavily neg on theory questions (condo, pics good, process CPs good, etc) but probably err aff on substance questions (namely, competition and the threshold for sufficiency). One exception - judge kick is godless, and for judging purposes you can consider me devoutly Catholic.
I've researched and coached more or less every K in this activity, from Wilderson to Marxism to a Blade Runner aff (good times). Good K debaters are organized and technical, with lots of contextual and specific explanations/examples. General rule - less overview, more line by line.
K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact or lose to presumption - shockingly, affs should defend things. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.
Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff, impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block and if I miss it, it's your fault, cheater.
K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast, so lots of examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I dislike the "two ships passing in the night" analogy, but I most often find it applying to these debates. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates.
Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is always neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem. However, a good 2NR demonstrating a good conceptual handle on what Marxism actually is might earn some extra speaks (this is probably the hardest way to earn them though).
Clash of Racist Metaphor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations/)
Very far from both "Framework is genocide" and "no plan no ballot" types - capital-T truth I ideologically err slightly aff, but my actual voting record errs slightly neg. Interpret this as you will. Some role for negation is good and there should be a general telos and stasis for discussions - ideal affirmative articulates a model with both but impact turns the negative's specific stasis point/telos i.e: not "debate is bad" but "their model of debate is bad, ours is better." TVAs and SSD don't need to solve the content of the aff, but debating them needs to solve the aff impact turns/offense. 2NRs lose when they don't collapse and explain a terminal impact or comparative i/l work on limits/ground. Hanging out/working with Evan Alexis has made me more convinced fairness is an external impact, but it rarely gets explained enough to be one.
Topicality is a question of predictable models of the topic, determined by research and literature, ergo intent to define terms of art > good limits in the abstract. I think more 2NRs should be T, and I think the quality of evidence in T debates is in steep decline - I still remember when people's core answer to affs that cheated was going for T instead of equally cheaty counterplans, and miss it greatly.
Reasonability is a question of the aff's interpretation, not what the aff actually did - I don't know why anyone thinks this isn't how it works.
Theory (mostly LD)
Condo is good and RVIs are bad. Consider these the strongest convictions in this paradigm.
Broadly speaking, the wonkier the shell, the greater my threshold for winning it is. If this sounds like your a strat, I'm not the judge for it.
Not voting on any sort of shell about clothes or people's behavior. I used to find this funny. Don't anymore.
I'm evaluating every part of the debate after the 2AR. Trying to change this loses you 0.1 speaks for every speech you exclude. I also am not flowing "no neg arguments," "no neg analytics," "no neg cards," anything particularly similar, or their inverses. If you are unironically asking yourself "is X argument similar to that?" as a way to get around this, it probably is, so there's your answer.
All of this can be changed by good (or bad) enough debating.
Clear explanation and explicit interactions are good. I find these debates are simultaneously too blippy and also too top-heavy, somehow. Better for substantive syllogisms and unified normative justifications for ethics, worse for spamming calc fails and then a burden structure.
I like these rounds, actually. I read a lot of European moral philosophy. Consider me better than average for these ballots, but certainly not as good as your ordinal 1 - I'm getting these ballots more lately, and I don't exactly hate it (but I have yet to enjoy one as much as a good K or policy throwdown) so I suppose I am decent for these rounds.
Nick Bostrom is a moron and nobody in philosophy takes him very seriously - phil debaters that indict the absurd substance of his position well (beyond just "calc fails lol") might get extra speaks. I do not like that guy.
I was gonna write a joke about "silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!" but I'm just too tired of these debates to care. Please don't pref me for this.
Stolen from my boss - "Jargon can enable precision, but it usually functions to make bad debaters think they are making good arguments when they are barely saying anything."
Uncomfortable voting on "this person did a bad" unless I literally see it. Dislike evaluating the character of minors who I don't know outside of these very limited interactions.
Inserting re-highlightings of their cards = go for it. Inserting cards from different parts of their article = gotta read it.
Not flowing cards about debate written by active debaters. Sorry.
"Role of the Ballot/Judge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pql0__Ii67A
Mich KM were never funny and Will Morgan is a groomer. Stop trying to imitate them.
Being funny or taking a casual approach to the debate is welcome and appreciated.
I decide most debates very fast. Like, sub-four minutes for an elim. Even in close rounds. Don't take it personally.
God, this kinda sucks. I will make sure that, barring connection issues, I have my camera on at all times during speeches and CX. I will turn my camera off after the 2AR while making my decision and turn it back on once I'm in. You don't have to have your camera on and don't have to ask me to turn it on/off. I'm okay with being recorded if (and only if) everyone else in the room is also okay with it.
Debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, respect people's personhood, etc.
Debate should also be enjoyable! Mess around a bit. Have some fun. Its the weekend. Enjoy yourselves.
Yao-Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck." You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.
Finally, a wager - if the 2AR/2NR sits down early, +0.2 speaks for every 30s saved if you win, but -0.2 speaks for every 30s if you lose - tell me if you do this, because I'm not timing you. Your move.
Good luck, and see you in round!