Jack Quisenberry
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 18 May 2022 5:03 PM CDTHey I’m Jack! I went to Northland in Houston, TX. I did LD for 4 years and competed on the national circuit for 3. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com
UPDATED for 2022/23 season
TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy and am best at judging policy arguments. (P.S. I realized that I tend to give way higher speaks in substance debates. Take that as you wish)
Pref Shortcuts
Policy - 1
Theory/T - 1
K (security, cap, set col) - 2
K (anything else) - 3
Phil/Tricks – 4
Defaults
- Tech > Truth
- Fairness > Education
- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
- T/Theory > K
- Comparative Worlds
- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD
Preferences
- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.
- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.
- No buffet 2nrs please
- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously
Hot Ls
- Kicking an uncondo advocacy
- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar
- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation.
- Stealing prep
- Not disclosing anything at all (new affs are the exception)
Things I'm not voting on
- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure).
- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater.
- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument
- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".
- Unwarranted IVIs
Policy Arguments
- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge.
- Likes: impact calc, ev comparison, plans with tight scenarios and big impacts, rehighlighting ev, cheaty CPs, reading theory against cheaty CPs, "the order is case"
- Dislikes: not weighing, old/no UQ, underhighlighted ev, plan flaw
Kritiks
- Don’t assume I have read your literature. BUT, I will still evaluate just like I would any other type of debate.
- Likes: robust line by line, root cause, link turns case, good fwk debates, pulling lines from the aff, alt solves X, set col, specific links to the plan
- Dislikes: massive overviews, "what's a floating PIK", no perms, the "state" link
K Aff/T Framework
- Affs need solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Negs need an answer to aff solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Likes: testing, fairness, intuitive aff counterinterps, Non T aff vs Cap K, TVAs, actual solvency
- Dislikes: T is violence, 6 minutes of my coaches prewritten fwk 2NR, 3 minutes of my coaches prewritten A2 fwk 2AR, blitzing through the 1ACs theory of power, we don't need solvency, 2NRs that ignore case
Framework
- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)
- Don’t assume I have read your literature. BUT, I will still evaluate just like I would any other type of debate. I just need a very clear extension of why your framework comes first/is true.
- Likes: extinction first, fun calc indicts, Blum, TJFs, going for turns under their fwk
- Dislikes: not reading a fwk in the AC, not reading a fwk in the NC when the AC doesn't read one, the "pragmatism" aff, TT takes out theory
Tricks
- I will evaluate them the same as any other argument as long as I see a claim, warrant, and impact.
- Likes: Warrants, "no 2nr theory" + severance (not a really tricks but tricky!)
- Dislikes: "what's an apriori?", condo logic, indexicals
T/Theory
- Love it!
- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my decision. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify.
- Likes: robust weighing, caselists, infinite regress vs spec, we meet, combo shells with unique offense
- Dislikes: poor explanation of semantics, 5 second 1AR shells, combo shells without unique offense, 2NR theory
Speaks
- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.
- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.
- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).
Full Judging Record
Judge Certifications

Judge attests they have taken the NFHS Cultural Competency Judge Training course. Required of all judges at NSDA tournaments.
nsda-cx-paradigm
Questionnaire required of all Policy judges at the NSDA National Tournament, even if they have a written Tabroom paradigm.
nsda-ld-paradigm
Questionnaire required of all LD judges at the NSDA National Tournament, even if they have a written Tabroom paradigm.

A honor code and release form required of all coaches, competitors and judges at the Tournament of Champions at the University of Kentucky