Douglas Fraleigh Paradigm

Last changed 1/25 3:09A UTC

Please add me to your email chain, douglasf@csufresno.edu

Background

Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Returned to coaching and judging in fall 2018 after serving as our department’s undergraduate advisor and chair, judged at ASU, SF State, San Diego State, UNLV, Northridge, USC, and Fullerton on this topic.

What Should You Know About How I Judge?

1. Run the arguments you run best, whether critical or policy. It is more important to me that you be clear (with your alt, your plan, your CP, your FW arguments, etc.) than follow any particular model of debate. If your arguments are vague or only become apparent in rebuttals, you are less likely to persuade me.

2. I am a flow-centric judge and the line-by-line debate is important to my decision.

3. I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. “T is an RVI, fairness”) even when it is dropped. However, I have a relatively low threshold for how much detail you need when extending an argument that was not answered. If the 1NC runs six off case positions and no case arguments, 2AC can safely spend a minute extending case (no need for detailed overviews) and focus on answering the off case.

4. My speaker points are mostly in the 28s-- low 28s for solid debating, mid 28s for good debating, and high 28s for very good debating, 29s for excellent debating. The considerations below are primary factors for me when assigning points.

What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?

1. Clash with your opponents’ arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.

2. The quality of your evidence is very important. I look to the content, the match between content and tag, and credibility of your authors. I appreciate debaters who continue to research throughout the season. It is a plus when policy evidence accounts for recent events (e.g. Democratic House and Mattis resignation) and critical debaters incorporate recent literature.

3. Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. The more precise you are on the flow, the better. For example, instead of just saying you are on “case” or “the K” and mashing all your arguments together, identify the part of the argument you are on. (For example, “on the China scenario, three responses,” “go to framework,” or “now I’m on the alt.” If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.

4. Good delivery is a plus. Regardless of how fast you are going, it is important to enunciate well. This is especially important for analytics (and really/really important for analytics you plan to use in 2NR/2AR). I can follow the evidence on your speech doc, but don’t have this option when you are creating arguments on the fly. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit on the most essential arguments in 2NR/2AR, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.

5. Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner, and compete against other colleges is a privilege; enjoy the journey.

Procedural Considerations

1. Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.

2. I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.

Policy Rounds

1. For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that other more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.

2. On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in 2NR), and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than their opponents’ do. If the T debate is close, I generally vote aff.

3. No preference for or bias against any particular counterplan. The domain of neg’s fiat power on CPs is up for debate. Both counterplan text and permutations should be clear.

Critical Rounds

1. Critical Affs. For critical affs, a key argument for me is the rationale for debating about the K rather than debating about a plan that purports to be topical. What is the opportunity cost of having a policy debate instead? I am open to a wide variety of arguments by both sides to address this question. A second important consideration is your vision of what the round should look like.

2. Critical Negs vs Policy Cases. The link to the aff should be clear. If the link is based on evidence (especially multi-page evidence), specify where in the evidence you are getting the link. I am most likely to be persuaded by a clear and specific alt that is developed in the 1NC. If you are not using a link/impact/alt format, explain your model for what the debate should look like.

3. K vs K Debates. I look to the debaters to make arguments about how the round should be judged.

Performance Rounds

I can be persuaded to vote for a performance. A performance can be rhetorical (or is always rhetorical, depending on your definition of rhetoric). However, I need to understand what arguments are being made by your performance and why you are saying these arguments warrant a decision for your side. It should also be apparent to your opponents. Don’t be subtle when explaining this.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Hornet Invitational 4/13/2019 RCX R3 J. Salcedo Campos & Avalos Southwestern Cobb & Cota Aff
Hornet Invitational 4/13/2019 RCX R2 J. Salcedo Huang & Vega Southwestern Palomino & Lovato Aff
Hornet Invitational 4/13/2019 RCX R1 Southwestern Gutierrez & Bauer Fullerton Kavari & Lim Neg
Western JV and Novice Policy Debate Championship 3/8/2019 NOV Semi Southwestern AM Fullerton BB Neg Neg on a 3-0
Western JV and Novice Policy Debate Championship 3/8/2019 JV R6 CSU Long Beach NV Southwestern MN Neg
Western JV and Novice Policy Debate Championship 3/8/2019 JV R5 Cal State Fullerton HP Southwestern AB Aff
Western JV and Novice Policy Debate Championship 3/8/2019 NOV R4 Cal State Fullerton RS Fullerton BB Neg
Western JV and Novice Policy Debate Championship 3/8/2019 NOV R3 CSU Long Beach BL Southwestern AM Neg
D1 Pacific Championship 2/23/2019 JVPol R5 Southwestern Jenkins & Navarro CSU Long Beach Franckhauser & Vazquez Aff
D1 Pacific Championship 2/23/2019 JVPol R2 Cal State Fullerton Hernandez & Perry Southwestern Aw & Berry Aff
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R8 UNLV Wong & Beckett St Mary's Sullivan & Dishion Aff Aff on a 3-0
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R6 St Mary's Austin & Stewartson St Mary's Griffiths & Owen Aff
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 JCX R2 Southern California Briseno & Flores Weber State Sellouk & Stephens Neg
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R1 UNLV Lamsal & Padilla St Mary's Walsh & Altenberg Aff
The 2019 Kathryn Klassic at Cal State Fullerton 1/7/2019 NOV R6 CSU Long Beach NV UNLV WB Aff
The 2019 Kathryn Klassic at Cal State Fullerton 1/7/2019 OPEN R3 Southern California DK UNLV AW Neg
The 2019 Kathryn Klassic at Cal State Fullerton 1/7/2019 OPEN R2 UC Berkeley EE UNLV SQ Aff
The 2019 Kathryn Klassic at Cal State Fullerton 1/7/2019 OPEN R1 Southern California RK CSU Long Beach GP Aff
2019 USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2019 Var R8 Southern California DK Concordia BS Aff
2019 USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2019 JV R4 CSU - Northridge AZ UNLV ST Aff
2019 USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2019 Var R3 Southern California KR Rutgers-Newark WL Aff
2019 USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2019 Var R2 UNLV QS CSU Long Beach GP Neg
2019 USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2019 Novice R1 UNLV BW CSU Long Beach NV Aff
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open R7 UNLV AW Florida SS Aff
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Nov QF UNLV PL Southwestern BN Aff Neg on a 2-1
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Nov R6 Houston BS Fullerton BM Aff
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Nov R5 UNLV PL Houston NT Aff
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open R4 Binghamton YA UNLV BR Aff
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 JV R3 Houston AN UT San Antonio FM Neg
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open R1 UC Berkeley SW Weber State MM Aff
Aztec Invitational 10/6/2018 NCX Finals Southwestern BN CSU Long Beach VN Neg Neg on a 2-1
Aztec Invitational 10/6/2018 NCX Semis Southwestern BN Fullerton BM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Aztec Invitational 10/6/2018 NCX R5 CSU - Northridge DZ Fullerton AC Aff
Aztec Invitational 10/6/2018 NCX R4 CSU Long Beach VN Southwestern BN Neg
Golden Gate Season Opener 9/21/2018 CX-O R3 Ohlone JV Southwestern BN Aff
Golden Gate Season Opener 9/21/2018 CX-O R1 UC Berkeley CK Southwestern HT Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R6 CSU Long Beach KB Southern California PT Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R4 UNLV RR Southern California RW Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R1 UNLV ST Southern California KK Neg