Turner Ward Paradigm

Last changed 25 September 2020 10:55 AM CST

Hello! I am Turner Ward and I did forensics and debate events in high school for five years, I kinda know what I am doing.

TLDR: do what you want to do and do it well. Let me know if you have any questions before the round and I will be happy to answer them.

Overview: I don't have a major preference for the style of debate that you do. While I have mainly done critical debate in high school and this is what I am doing in college, I have also read soft-left affs and disads. I would much rather you debate what you are comfortable with rather than trying to conform to a style of debate that you aren't good at. I have done some research on this topic to help develop cases for the novices at my high school so I have a general idea about the topic. However, if you are going to be using a bunch of legal/technical terms you may need to flesh out what they mean. With that being said, you have the responsibility to explain your arguments to me and why they are important. Just because I have read k's in high school doesn't mean that I will hack for the k. I think far too many teams fail to have links specific to the aff and have terrible explanations of the alt which make it an uphill battle for the negative. Good alt explanation, framing arguments, and link explanation go a long way in making me vote negative on a k. This also applies for a counterplan/disad debate.

If you are going to be going for cp's and da's make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a strong link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.

I will vote on T or FW arguments. I think teams underutilize t way too much and especially when the 1ar is not very responsive on t, more teams should feel comfortable going for it.

K affs: go for it. you need to make sure that you have a method and you defend the method or have a reason why having a method is bad. I think it is probably important that the aff talk about the resolution and advocate a strategy that would be in the direction of the resolution. I am cool with performance debate but the performance should relate to the resolution and/or the debate space in some way. I think there are ways that negative teams can engage k/performance affs besides reading framework but this is much easier when the debate is centered on the resolution. I think when this fails to happen, framework becomes more convincing.

I think disclosure is important, especially in novice debates. You should disclose the aff that you are reading and previous 2nrs. The easiest way to do this is on the wiki. If you cannot do this, you should find a way to let your opponents know before the round. Teams that refuse to disclose affs will probably lose to disclosure theory if it is read unless the aff provides a very convincing argument explaining why you shouldn't have to/can't. I will attempt to reward good disclosure with a slight bump in speaks but honestly this should just be a norm. This is more so for policy debate but I believe that this is a community norm that is extremely beneficial and is thankfully being spilled over to other styles of debate like LD. If you have the ability to disclose, you should.

LD:

While I have done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the more traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but some of the theory arguments that I have seen in LD I have not been a fan of. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than you extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Do with that as you wish. I definitely lean progressive > traditional in terms of style of debate but if you happen to have me and you are a traditional debater don't try to overly conform to a style of debate you aren't comfortable with. I'd much rather see you do what you do best. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear but make sure to be considerate to your opponents.

Thank you Lawson Hudson for the Paradigm.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Arkansas Forensics and Debate State Championship HS 2021-03-30 NIPDA R3 2 Breanna Breedlove 10 Darlenne Chacon Neg
Arkansas Forensics and Debate State Championship HS 2021-03-30 NPF R2 16 Dennis & Ramsey 10 Pineda & Rackley Pro
Arkansas Forensics and Debate State Championship HS 2021-03-30 NIPDA R1 11 Kali Givens 5 Luke Lightner Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 NLD R6 Dowling Catholic KB Harvard-Westlake MT Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 NLD R5 Harvard-Westlake EJ Lakeville South CT Neg
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 NLD R4 Dowling Catholic JT Harvard-Westlake EM Neg
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 NLD R3 Northview RS Lake Highland Prep VS Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 NLD R2 Apple Valley LW Harvard-Westlake AK Neg
ACTAA High School October Regional HS 2020-10-17 NLD R2 3 Annabelle Morden 3 Chloe Howard Aff
ACTAA High School October Regional HS 2020-10-17 NLD R1 3 Jace Owens 3 Kamelia Skinner Aff
ACTAA High School September Regional HS 2020-09-20 NLD R2 1 Alayna Adineh-Kharat 1 Sawyer Giese Neg
ACTAA High School September Regional HS 2020-09-20 NPF R1 7 Pineda & Rackley 12 Evie Dean Pro