Seth Phillips ParadigmLast changed 9/8 10:17A CST
General CX/LD/PFD Preferences:
Professionalism and civility are required and weigh heavily in speakerpoints
Standing CX/Crossfire; seated Grand Crossfire; look at judge in CX/Crossfire
Don't use open CX/Crossfire as a crutch (I will dock speaks if it's clear one partner is doing all the heavy lifting)
I may critique after round, but only if both teams request. If I do critique, I will generally not disclose and I will keep it brief as I write a lot on the ballot for the benefit of your coach.
My view on speed (spreading) is that I will flow it, but a speaker should not sacrifice articulation for speed. If articulation is an issue, please slow down as I have some nerve deafness in my left ear, so you must be clear. However, PFD is an event where spreading is highly discouraged.
I'm a rule follower, so if there is a tournament prohibition on open CX, email chains, prompting, etc., don't do it!
CX Argument Preferences:
I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments
I will consider and vote on:
- Disadvantages almost always (i.e., if properly weighed against Aff advantages/turns)
- Counterplans almost always (however, must show solvency for Aff harms and not link to any DAs/other offense against Aff)
- Kritiks rarely (i.e., if properly weighed; compare worlds). Alt needs to compete. "Reject" isn't sufficient.
- Conditionality arguments sometimes (e.g., unless team offering argument argues otherwise, I will assume an unconditional status on all augments offered)
- Theory sometimes (particularly if there is clear evidence of in-round abuse such as over-limiting topic, denying fair ground, etc.)
- Topicality sometimes (e.g., if clear in-round abuse; over-limiting topic)
- Inherency sometimes (i.e., if plan is already in status quo, then no reason to vote for Aff)
- Solvency/Workability almost always (i.e., a plan that doesn't work, doesn't solve for status quo harms/claim advantages and thus doesn't provide a net benefit)
LD Argument Preferences:
If you run policy/critical arguments, I tend to vote as a policy-maker (see CX paradigm above). Traditional Value/Criterion arguments are also fine by me in LD.
I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments.
Empirical examples are as important, if not more important, than reading "unique", esoteric cards.
PFD Argument Preferences:
While I am a coach, this event was designed to be accessible for "lay" judges, so please adapt accordingly.
Empirical examples are very useful and don't necessarily require a source, if general knowledge.
While framework is not essential, it is often helpful in close rounds.
Congressional Debate Argument Preferences:
Structure and content are both essential. In each speech, there should be a clear intro with statement of position on resolution and preview of main points. Main points should be supported by the type of evidence you would expect a member of Congress to rely upon for a speech before the House/Senate. Responses to fellow members and a discussion of how the legislation would impact one's "constituents" are part of the "debate" aspect of this event. Walking transitions between points and when answering questions is expected.
Parliamentary Procedure and PO duties:
Efficiency, use of proper voting procedures and correct motions to move along debate are an obligation of ALL members of the chamber and should not have to be repeatedly prompted by the PO. The PO's primary duties are to keep speech time and recognize speakers/questioners based on a strict, impartial adherence to precedence/recency. Do not run for PO if you do not feel prepared to execute these duties. Serving as PO is never a guarantee of breaking; a PO's performance is weighed against the PO expectations outlined above.
Speech/Debate Coach at Prosper High School, Prosper, Texas
Licensed Texas Attorney
BA/MA in Communication Studies, Texas Tech University
Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Southern Methodist University
Member of LGBTQ community
Pronouns: Prefer he/him