Adam R. Lee Paradigm

Last changed Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM UTC

I debated at the University of Texas and graduated in 2002.  I coached in various and sundry locations thereafter.  I am now an attorney in Maine.  I have judged sporadically over the last decade, but have done much more judging this year.  I flow pretty well and on paper.  I initially was against being on your email chain, but have now realized that as a matter of efficiency it's easier for me to aggregate the necessary evidence to make a decision at the end of the round.  That it exists in a document and on my laptop, however, does not mean anything.  Your evidence will only be given weight if it was sufficiently explained and debated in the round.  I enjoy debates that focus on evidentiary distinctions, author quality, and demonstrate to me that you are actually thinking rather than rotely reading your evidence or blocks.  Please don't take this as an endorsment of one substantive type of debate over another.  I have seen T debates, theory debates, K debates, C/P D/A Debates, and case debates I have loved.  I have seen T debates, theory debates, K debates, C/P D/A debates, and case debates I have hated.        

Accordingly, my preference is that you make no adjustments to your preferred method or choice of argument and that I adjudicate the round based on you justifying why that it is preferable to any other proposed by the other team. The key to this is that YOU MUST WIN, which is best done through impact analysis. Absent impact analysis, I will unfortunately be forced to see things my way.  If your 2NR or 2AR lacks a moment (or many) in which you talk about why you win, you will likely lose.  So, the remainder of this is my way of informing you about my defaults, all of which only come into play if you have not effectively done the above. 


The Arguments

Topicality: Competing interpretations as a starting point makes the most sense to me.  However, interpretations that are not meaningfully grounded in the words of the resolution are not, to me, very good T interpretations. Your interpretation should have net benefits; I feel that the limits debate (either way) usually makes a pretty good one. My senior year (now 14 years ago, I am old) I went for T in about 50% of my 2NR's.  I think that “kritikal affs” that say you don’t have to be topical are being lazy.  (preface:  this next sentence may come off with a certain “back in my day tone" because as we have established, I am old) My partner and I ran an ironic affirmative on the Africa Topic, of course many people went for T, we beat the vast majority of those teams because we had a smart counter-interpretation.  The topic does not constrain creativity, being topical doesn’t either.  If the neg’s interpretation precludes creativity, doesn’t that seem like an argument against their interpretation rather than the notion that one should be topical?  To presume that your aff is already excluded by the resolution is silly.  The resolution is a meaningless text only given meaning by being debated.  Topicality debates are the opportunity to do that.  Consider the rant over, but what you should take away is I love good T debates as rare as they are.

Theory: I’ll vote on it (see Topicality above to see how best to frame it), but would prefer not to. I tend to err negative on counterplan theory.


"Framework": I understand the strategic convenience of calling these arguments framework and dealing with them on one flow.  Nevertheless, I find it remarkably sad that we are not (after several decades now) capable of reconginizing that there is value in the discussion of what happens in the hypothetical circumstances that the Federal Goverment passes plan and value in the discussion that there are problematic presuppositions that may inform the formation of that plan.  I can understand that there is no such thing as fiat, neither I nor anyone else is mistaking you for the President or Congress; however, that does not mean that there is no reason to evaluate the consequences of what happens if the Federal Government does something. Conversely, this does not mean that the ethical ramifications of ideas or words should not also be discussed. In essence, these are Extra-Topicality arguments and/or a reason why your impacts outweigh the other team's.  

Disads: Love em, Uniqueness is important, but not determinative.  Yes, it’s hard to win zero risk of the disad, but propensity is as important (your job to debate this) if not more important (again, I’ll leave that to you all in the debate) than magnitude.

Counterplans: The most effective tools in the negative arsenal.  Why don't you use them?

Kritiks: Great, this was the other 50% of my senior year 2nrs. I love it when you make your links specific to the aff (sometimes well done by making arguments on the case debate) and articulate more than just some ethereal concept as the alternative (however i will vote negative for a well articulated reason that the kritik argument turns case). When you do not do this, the Permutation often looks very attractive to me. In addition, it pays to read “disads” to the permutation and for the aff to read “disads” to the alt that do not link to the permutation.

Performance: Sure, but as with anything tell me why your ideas are better than the other team's. I'm not really cool with, I read a poem…it was about potato bugs of the East Antilles…poems are good…I win. I think that diversity of both people and argument is good, but I do not think that because you read something before the other team does, you win. Debate is about debating ideas; I do not care HOW you debate those ideas so long as you do so and do so better than the other team.

Case Debate:  If I had my way, this is all that there would be, but I understand that it would put you as the negative at a great disadvantage.  At this point in the season, there’s absolutely no excuse for not at least having something specific to case.

Other stuff

Do not be a jerk to the other team or your partner, I love a little well placed trash talk especially if it's funny, but don't be a jerk (it's your job to figure out where the line between these two is).  Do not steal prep time.  I'm pretty nice, so if you have any questions ask me.


 

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Event Rd Aff Neg Decision
Cornell Policy Tournament The Tournament of Love 2/11/2017 N 1 New York SS Binghamton MM NEG Binghamton MM
Cornell Policy Tournament The Tournament of Love 2/11/2017 O 2 Rutgers-Newark RM Rochester PM AFF Rutgers-Newark RM
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Open 1 Bingha MX NewYor BK AFF Bingha MX
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Open 3 Libert BW Cornel KZ AFF Libert BW
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 JV 4 Libert MS WesVir AB AFF Libert MS
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Novice 5 Libert AB GeoMas HK AFF Libert AB
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Open 6 GeoMas LM JamMad BK NEG JamMad BK
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Open Octos GeoMas LM Bingha MX AFF GeoMas LM
Bingha MX on a 2-1
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Novice Quarters Libert AG GeoMas TB NEG GeoMas TB
GeoMas TB on a 3-0
West Point Debate Tournament 10/7/2016 Novice Semis Bingha MW NewYor CS AFF Bingha MW
Bingha MW on a 3-0
National Debate Tournament NDT at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round 2 Trinity RS Nevada Las Vegas CH AFF Trinity RS
National Debate Tournament NDT at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round 5 Georgetown KL West Georgia MS NEG West Georgia MS
National Debate Tournament NDT at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round 7 Missouri - Kansas City FJ Texas KS NEG Texas KS
National Debate Tournament NDT at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round 8 Texas BP Trinity SY AFF Texas BP
National Debate Tournament NDT at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Octos Kentucky GN Missouri - Kansas City FJ AFF Kentucky GN
Kentucky GN on a 5-0
ADA Nationals at Boston College 3/11/2016 JV 1 Cornell KK Boston BS NEG Boston BS
ADA Nationals at Boston College 3/11/2016 Novi 2 Liberty HH Illinois HZ AFF Liberty HH
ADA Nationals at Boston College 3/11/2016 JV 3 Boston MP Liberty BW NEG Liberty BW
ADA Nationals at Boston College 3/11/2016 Open 4 Georgetown MS Liberty SC AFF Georgetown MS
ADA Nationals at Boston College 3/11/2016 Novi 5 Liberty BH West Virginia TC AFF Liberty BH
ADA Nationals at Boston College 3/11/2016 Novi 6 Western Connecticut State RW Liberty GT NEG Liberty GT
D8 NDT Qualifier Binghamton 2/27/2016 Open 1 Binghamton BS NYU DZ AFF Binghamton BS
D8 NDT Qualifier Binghamton 2/27/2016 Open 2 United States Military BS Cornell LT AFF United States Military BS
D8 NDT Qualifier Binghamton 2/27/2016 Open 3 Rochester AB NYU CK NEG NYU CK
D8 NDT Qualifier Binghamton 2/27/2016 Open 4 NYU CK Binghamton CH NEG Binghamton CH
D8 NDT Qualifier Binghamton 2/27/2016 Open 5 Harvard BK United States Military BS NEG United States Military BS
D8 NDT Qualifier Binghamton 2/27/2016 Open 6 Binghamton CH Rochester AB AFF Binghamton CH
Harvard 10/31/2015 Open 1 Dartmouth BA Kentucky HR NEG Kentucky HR
Harvard 10/31/2015 Open 2 Wake Forest AS Michigan MD AFF Wake Forest AS
Harvard 10/31/2015 Open 3 Michigan KM Nevada Las Vegas AO AFF Michigan KM
Harvard 10/31/2015 Open 4 Nevada Las Vegas HC Capital CL AFF Nevada Las Vegas HC
Harvard 10/31/2015 Open 7 Arizona State CR Georgetown EK NEG Georgetown EK
Harvard 10/31/2015 Open 8 Oklahoma RS Rochester AB AFF Oklahoma RS
West Point Debate Tournament 10/23/2015 Open Round 1 JamMad BK GeoMas MT NEG GeoMas MT
West Point Debate Tournament 10/23/2015 Open Round 3 JamMad PD NewYor KX NEG NewYor KX
West Point Debate Tournament 10/23/2015 JV Round 4 JamMad CH Miami LL AFF JamMad CH
West Point Debate Tournament 10/23/2015 Open Round 5 JamMad PM Miami KS NEG Miami KS
West Point Debate Tournament 10/23/2015 JV Round 6 Washto HM JamMad CM NEG JamMad CM
West Point Debate Tournament 10/23/2015 JV Octos Washto EP RutgersUniSta MW NEG RutgersUniSta MW
RutgersUniSta MW on a 3-0
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 JV 1 Binghamton WM Navy PP AFF Binghamton WM
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 open Opn 2 Navy RM George Mason GM NEG George Mason GM
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 JV 3 James Madison CY United States Military CW NEG United States Military CW
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 JV 4 George Mason LM Binghamton MS NEG Binghamton MS
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 open Opn 5 James Madison PM Binghamton SY NEG Binghamton SY
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 JV 6 United States Military HR Binghamton TF AFF United States Military HR
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 nov Nov Octos Cornell WS Binghamton HV NEG Binghamton HV
Binghamton HV on a 3-0
Rutgers NE Regional Opener 9/25/2015 nov Nov Quarters James Madison CE NYU PS AFF James Madison CE
James Madison CE on a 2-1
CEDA East Regionals at WCSU 2/21/2015 JV 1 Binghamton SS United States Military RS NEG United States Military RS
D8 NDT Qualifier at WCSU 2/21/2015 D8 2 Western Connecticut State MM Dartmouth College KM NEG Dartmouth College KM
D8 NDT Qualifier at WCSU 2/21/2015 D8 3 Cornell KG NYU DK NEG NYU DK
D8 NDT Qualifier at WCSU 2/21/2015 D8 4 CUNY AM Western Connecticut State AE AFF CUNY AM
D8 NDT Qualifier at WCSU 2/21/2015 D8 5 Dartmouth College AY United States Military BC NEG United States Military BC
D8 NDT Qualifier at WCSU 2/21/2015 D8 6 Binghamton SH Western Connecticut State MM AFF Binghamton SH
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 1 Binghamton HC United States Military BS NEG United States Military BS
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 2 United States Military LS Vermont BB NEG Vermont BB
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 3 Dartmouth College KS NYU KZ AFF Dartmouth College KS
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 4 Dartmouth College MM CUNY/NYU CD AFF Dartmouth College MM
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 6 Vermont BB Dartmouth College KS AFF Vermont BB
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 7 NYU DG CUNY MJ NEG CUNY MJ
D8 NDT Qualifier 2/22/2014 D8 D8 8 CUNY MJ Binghamton SR NEG Binghamton SR
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Open Open Round 1 BC ST Cornell GM NEG Cornell GM
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Novice Novice Round 2 Cornell HX Binghamton MO NEG Binghamton MO
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Novice Novice Round 3 USMA CF UVM KS AFF USMA CF
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Open Open Round 4 Binghamton EF Cornell RW NEG Cornell RW
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Open Open Round 5 Cornell FF Binghamton CP AFF Cornell FF
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Open Open Round 6 USMA BS Cornell DK AFF USMA BS
Huber Debates 2012 Univ of Vermont 11/3/2012 Open Open Quarters Binghamton GR Bard JT AFF Binghamton GR
Binghamton GR on a 3-0