Michael Stone Paradigm

Last changed 1/18 10:54A MST

Event-specific paradigms

Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Congress: Chairs, please be sure to be fair in whom you allow to speak and when, and follow priority. Speakers, I will judge you based on the logical strength of your argumentation, your ability to successfully address attacks against your argumentation, and your speaking performance (construction of the speech, audience engagement, etc).

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your speeches; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the discussion of the house itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a speech/debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Impromptu, OO, Extemp: I will judge you according to these three criteria:

1) Relevance. Did you address a subject in a way that I can easily see why I or the audience should care about what you are talking about?

2) Uniqueness. Was what you said in your performance something I have probably heard 20 times about already? Or was it a sob story that (while admittedly it may be sad and tragic, and you have my condolences) was calculated to exclude other students who haven't had their "sob story" happen yet?

3)Call to change. How successfully do you persuade the audience that we should live or think or feel differently about something in supporting the main thesis of your speech?

Interp Events: I will judge you according to these criteria:

1) Characterization. To what degree can I believe that you are your characters, and not a teenage student from a team other than my own whom I hardly know?

2) Technique. Strong acting choices, incorporation of the narrative arc, believable variety in intonation, vocalization, and emotion.

3) General effectiveness. To what degree could I see this level of performance you give me meet the standard of a professional actor?

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 PF R9 AW Hennrich & Steele AS Smith & Engle Neg Neg on a 2-1
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 LD R8 AF Dallyn Edmunds AS Christian Berg Neg Neg on a 2-1
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 PF R7 AW Hennrich & Steele AS Long & Devenport Aff Aff on a 3-0
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 LD R6 AH Emily Erickson AD Gabriella Grover Aff
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 LD R6 AD Omar Khan AS Brooklyn Nielsen Aff
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 LD R3 AS Lane Lindstrom AH Alex Brown Neg
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 PF R2 AG Robles & VanOrman AK Agarwal & Young Neg
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 PF R2 AH Douglas & Baker AK Chavakula & Hwu Aff
Knights Joust at Lone Peak 1/17/2020 PF R1 AL Faraji & Clark AG Wintriss & Houden Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/10/2020 VPF R2 DuPont Manual GT Leland KL Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/10/2020 VPF R1 Mountain Crest TW Mira Loma KD Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/10/2020 VPF R1 Hamilton JP Oakwood School - North Hollywood GS Aff
Hunter Haunting 10/26/2019 OCX R2 Summit Roundy & Guerra Highla Hansen & Reece Neg
Hunter Haunting 10/26/2019 NCX R1 LonPea Allan & Hord SkyVie Anderson & Buffham Neg
Beehive Bonanza 10/4/2019 OLD Octos ParCit CM Logan GZ Neg Neg on a 2-1
Beehive Bonanza 10/4/2019 OLD R5 Bright NM WooCro DF Neg
Beehive Bonanza 10/4/2019 NLD R1 AmePre Ainslee Cottam CriCli Tyler Boopor Aff
Beehive Bonanza 10/4/2019 NLD R1 AmeLea Novalee Oliver Jordan Jyselle Hernandez Aff
UHSAA Region 3 2/23/2019 LD R3 Riverton HS - Riverton, UT AL West Jordan CH Aff
UHSAA Region 3 2/23/2019 CX R1 Riverton HS - Riverton, UT TY Copper Hills BL Aff
Sundance District Tournament 2/9/2019 LD R7 216 316 Neg Aff on a 2-1
Sundance District Tournament 2/9/2019 CX R4 249 301 Neg
Sundance District Tournament 2/9/2019 CX R3 325 341 Neg
Sundance District Tournament 2/9/2019 CX R2 308 256 Aff
Sundance District Tournament 2/9/2019 CX R1 324 330 Aff
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 PFD Semifi SalHil Smith & Williams Davis Schwab & Adler Aff Neg on a 2-1
Patriot Pride 1/12/2019 SA R2 Jordan jessica pike Highla Kaya McDonald Aff
Patriot Pride 1/12/2019 SA R2 Jordan Anika Boyer Highla Aaron King Aff
Patriot Pride 1/12/2019 PF R1 Jordan Hendrickson & Humeniuk Juab Hennrich & Steele Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 OCX R3 ProHal Wheeler & Medeiros HurHig Beatty & Raddatz Neg
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 OCX R2 Skylin Dey & Sabala ParCit Kanarowski & Rothwell Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/16/2018 NCX R1 WesHS Filizola Ruiz & Sundstrom Skylin Pham & Zhang Aff
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/26/2018 PFD Semifi Logan Browning & Weed WooCro Jones & Hall Neg Aff on a 2-1
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VLD R5 KarG. Wesly Harston RowHal Ria Agarwal Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VPF R4 Tooele Sablan & Miles Kearns Turnbow & Gomez Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VLD R3 KarG. Elijah Clark Bright Avery Vanderlinden Aff
Skyhawk Smackdown 11/17/2017 VLD R1 CopHil Vivian Lee KarG. Anguun Tushigsaikhan Neg
Red and Black Invitational 11/3/2017 OSP 3-A AN FK AX DS Neg
Red and Black Invitational 11/3/2017 OSP 3-A AX KL AW KC Neg
Red and Black Invitational 11/3/2017 OSP 3-A AW AM AL IA Neg