Aarron Schurevich Paradigm

Last changed 27 April 2019 7:57 AM CDT

Last updated 4/27/2019

A PF specific tl;dr for 2019 TOC: I haven't judged in a while, so I'm rusty on the flow; 2nd rebuttal MUST address both sides; PF is a speaking event, and your presentation style should be geared toward laypersons; and I HATE evidence paraphrasing to the extent that I will use speaks to punish the practice. Details on all of these items and more are in the full text below.

Important initial note: I haven't judged a ton the past couple of years. I've been spending more and more tournaments in tabrooms and less and less time at those tournaments adjudicating debates. As such, my flow skills are not as sharp as they have been in the past. Even more than usual, I am not the judge for blippy, super intricate, and/or card-dump debates. First and foremost, I don't like those debates, but more importantly, I'm not going to be good at evaluating them right now. If an argument matters, the debater needs to ensure I actually know it matters by spending time on explaining how it functions and why it is critical.

BIO
I am the head coach of the Millard North debate team in Omaha, NE and have been since 2012. For several years prior to joining Millard North, I was the Public Forum assistant coach for Fred Robertson at Millard West.

UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES:
I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

PUBLIC FORUM
I have judged PF more often than anything else, and it's the source of the majority of my training and experience.

STRIKE ADVICE
- If you do not intend to address both sides of the flow in the second rebuttal, you should strike me. Every team addresses both sides every weekend on my regional circuit, so I know it is a fair expectation AND that it can be done successfully. If you do not adapt to this expectation, you will be disappointed with the round's results, and I will not be kind with speaks.
- If you are rude and approach debate as a place to just flex and show off how much smarter you are than other people, you should strike me. In the past, I have used my ballot to forcefully discourage bad behavior, unnecessary rudeness, and disrespectful treatment of opponents. I have no problem doing so again.
- If you refuse to slow down and explain arguments as you might if you were speaking to any other non-debate human, you should strike me. Do not forget that I haven't been judging a ton lately, and if you do not take that into account and adapt for me, I will not sweat even for a second when I inevitably miss arguments on my flow.
- If you do not intend to read quoted evidence and instead paraphase your evidence, strike me. Paraphrasing of evidence is a cancer in PF.

GENERAL NOTE
I would be happy to see something unconventional (plan, kritik, etc.). If you want to go off the beaten path, I need you to be able to argumentatively justify your approach (Why is a plan good for PF? Why is your K important, especially in this event?) when you're inevitably pressed. The flip side of this is that I'll be at least receptive to theory arguments against these case strats if your opponents deem it necessary. For instance, if you run a specific plan, I'd listen to a theory argument about disclosure since disclosure has become a norm where plan debate exists otherwise.

I caution, however: by absolutely no means do I intend to indicate that I would like to see a case you're running that you're just running for the lulz. For the love of all that is holy, do not run a joke/meme case in front of me; you will be able to see the dissatisfaction in my immediate reaction and in the resultant mushroom cloud which will rise when I inevitably nuke your speaks.

FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other's. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and none of us in that round want me to have to do that given that judges doing work for themselves is the quickest way to get people all huffy about the decision. I won't intervene unless I'm left with no option but to do so in order to make a decision.

Also, more specifically on framework, if it matters and it's something that swings the debate one way or the other, you need to apply the framework to the argumentation in the debate.

SPEED
Don't. That's not the event's intention, and the speaker points I award will be used to discourage speaking practices I find to be problematic. Beyond all that, I suck at dealing with speed, so even if I wanted to get it all, I wouldn't and I won't be bothered by the fact that I'll only get a percentage of what you say on my flow due to your choices.

EVIDENCE
Please, please, please, please, please... for your sake and for mine, do not paraphrase your evidence. I need to hear the words of your evidentiary sources, not just your reading of what those sources claim. Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I will be discouraging via speaker points (1-2 speaker point reduction in what would have been otherwise awarded when quoted evidence is not read). All I'll need an opponent to do to answer your paraphrased evidence is tell me it's not a quote/that you paraphrased and I'll disregard it as if it were never on my flow at all. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a BARE MINIMUM) and sources (WITH CREDENTIALS OF THE AUTHOR) cited in all evidence. Without those things, I probably won't evaluate your claimed "evidence" as evidence, and you will likely be upset with how things go in the debate.

REBUTTALS
I steadfastly believe it is the second team's duty and obligation to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

SPEAKER POINTS
If you're organizing your strikes with the goal of winning a speaker award, I'm probably not your favorite judge. My scale is essentially as follows:

  • 30 - Absolute perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons when I was judging every weekend where I gave no 30's.)
  • 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
  • 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
  • 27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
  • 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
  • 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)

I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the decision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points if the decorum issues continue.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I used to judge LD fairly frequently, but in recent years, I have judged LD far more infrequently (perhaps an average of about 0-5 rounds a year for the past several years).

SPEED
To be frank, I'm not good with flowing speed, though I have gotten much better since about 2013. I don't want a debater to speak to me like I'm a troglodyte, but I still struggle to some extent when tasked with keeping up with a quick speaker on the flow. I prefer a much more relaxed delivery than the hyper-active speed, but I will do everything I can to follow along and keep up. I will clear you if I'm not able to follow along, but if a debater doesn't adapt to my ability level, I'm not heartbroken over missing an argument or two on the flow. I'm an open book as far as non-verbal feedback goes, so you ought to know what I'm thinking and how I feel in any given moment.

STANDARDS/ARGUMENT STYLE
I prefer a traditional value-criterion centered argumentative style as the rounds are much more difficult to evaluate fairly when I'm not given a clear means of preferring a side. I also prefer more resolutionally founded argumentation, but I won't reject non-topical positions without a reason to do so. While I'm largely inexperienced with many of the more technical aspects of national circuit LD, I am open to virtually anything.

THEORY
If you run a theory argument, you should have a solid reason to make that argument. Abuses claimed need to be well-founded and explained. Blippy theory arguments will do nothing for me. I'm not necessarily outright opposed to theory being run, but the debater in question should know that I will need to have it explained essentially every step of the way. Don't treat me like I'm incapable of understanding a the position, but please present it to me as someone that has not heard the position before.

K DEBATE
I would like to see a well-developed K position, but I expect the K to either be the only thing a debater runs or to be consistent with other positions the debater chooses to pursue. Please provide enough analytics to explain the position. My openness established, I have little experience with the K, so I might need a higher level of explanation than other judges who are open to the K.

GENERAL NOTE
I prefer developed case debate. A 67-off-case-positions style of LD isn't appealing to me. I can (and will) evaluate them if the round dictates so, but a debate wherein I see a litany of blippy arguments opposing a handful of well-developed ones, I'm siding with the well-developed positions the overwhelming majority of the time. One dropped argument does not a victory make if that dropped argument is in itself poorly developed. I'm open to anything that's well explained and well-justified, but it must certainly be both of those things if it's what you plan on going for in the end of the debate. I won't be ideologically opposed to the arguments you decide to run, but I likely won't be as familiar with the jargon and hyper-technical aspects of your arguments as other judges may be.

SPEAKER POINTS
If you're pref'ing judges with the goal of winning a speaker award, I'm probably not your judge. I've never utilized the tenth points scale beyond using half points, so I don't use them. I have no idea what makes a 29.2 different than a 29.4; I understand that when seeking out speaker awards, it's a big difference, but because I can't for the life of me understand a practical difference in those two performances, I'm not one to put the tenth point speaks into play.

My scale is essentially as follows:

  • 30 - Absolute perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons where I gave no 30's.)
  • 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
  • 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
  • 27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
  • 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
  • 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)


I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the decision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points if the decorum issues continue.

PREF ADVICE
My advice on how to pref me:

  • Theory Debaters - 4 or Strike (I'm just not one to see most theory args are important or a reason to vote.)
  • K Debaters - 2 or 3 (There are judges that are much more experienced with the K that you'd probably pref higher than me.)
  • Traditional: 1 or 2
  • Tricks: 4 or Strike (In all likelihood, I'm not your judge. I'll listen to it if it's explained, but the tricks are so frequently blippy and unexplained that I have lots of trouble evaluating that style of debate.)


If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Potomac June Intramural HS 2021-06-11 HS Finals Potomac RY Potomac PS Neg Neg 2-1
Potomac June Intramural HS 2021-06-11 HS R4 Potomac RY Potomac OS Aff
Potomac June Intramural HS 2021-06-11 HS R3 Potomac VN Potomac NU Aff
Potomac June Intramural HS 2021-06-11 HS R2 Potomac CC Potomac KS Neg
The Milo Cup at Millard North HS 2020-02-21 PFRR Semis BASIS Scottsdale WW Newton South SJ PRO PRO 3-0
The Milo Cup at Millard North HS 2020-02-21 PFRR Semis Newton South CF Lakeville GN PRO PRO 3-0
The Dowling Catholic Paradigm HS 2019-12-13 PF Octafi Edina WJ Lakeville HS Pro Pro 2-1
The Dowling Catholic Paradigm HS 2019-12-13 PF Double Harrisburg AO Brentwood RS Pro Pro 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 BQ R8 Q136 Q125 Aff Aff 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 BQ R8 Q152 Q151 Aff Aff 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 BQ R7 Q147 Q143 Aff Aff 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 BQ R7 Q105 Q145 Aff Aff 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 BQ R3 Q124 Q112 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2019-06-17 BQ R3 Q121 Q122 Aff
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFG R7 Lincoln-Sudbury HS Columbus CA Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFG R3 Acton-Boxborough LR Edgemont BN Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFG R2 Ridge ZG Lake Highland Prep KO Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFS R1 Canyon Crest GL Altamont CS Pro
NSCTA State Debate Championships HS 2019-03-22 LD R3 Lincoln Southwest TH Marian OH Aff
SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes HS 2018-11-10 NPF Final SFR Fandel & Johnson HAR Hammer & Schipper Pro Pro 3-0
SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes HS 2018-11-10 VPF Quarte YAN Demaray & Gillis SFC Lubben & VanDenTop Con Con 2-1
SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes HS 2018-11-10 NPF R5 SFR Kendall Jones WAT Hertel & Vockrodt Pro
SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes HS 2018-11-10 NPF R4 WAT Semrod & Pendley YAN McNatt & Decker Con
SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes HS 2018-11-10 VPF R2 HAR Anderson & SerflingBennett SFR Johnson & Loera Pro
SF Roosevelt Sweetstakes HS 2018-11-10 VPF R1 ABC Vetch & Rhodes HAR Corcoran & Koehler Pro
Champion Briefs Institute Camp Tournament 2017-07-07 PF R6 Green Lab Riya Garg & Alexandra Frank Blue Lab Will Watson & Derrick Zhen Con
Champion Briefs Institute Camp Tournament 2017-07-07 PF R5 Green Lab Juliana Pinnick & Aditya Meruva Green Lab Versace Voyatzoglou & Nicolas Suarez Con
Champion Briefs Institute Camp Tournament 2017-07-07 PF R4 Red Lab Juan Formoso & Custer Gilcrest Blue Lab Elizabeth Hepburn & Hannah Feuer Con
Champion Briefs Institute Camp Tournament 2017-07-07 PF R1 Blue Lab Luke Seo & Neil Jacob Green Lab Priya Gutta & Alina Zhong Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 SPF Octo Pine View PP Fairmont Prep OP Con Con 2-1
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 PF R4 Plano West Senior LY Edgemont BS Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 PF R3 Millburn CY Mission San Jose KW Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2017-04-29 PF R1 Poly Prep Country Day SS Milton CG Pro
CBI FL1 Camp Tournament 2016-07-01 PF Semis Inzinna DeMann & Lam Baron Chase & Meles Pro Pro 2-1
CBI FL1 Camp Tournament 2016-07-01 PF Quarte Fisher Owens & Posner Baron Sheerer & Medina Con Con 3-0
CBI FL1 Camp Tournament 2016-07-01 PF R5 Huston Iyer & Tsou Inzinna DeMann & Lam Con
CBI FL1 Camp Tournament 2016-07-01 PF R2 Fisher Manikkuttiyil & Smith Huston Siegel & Bober Pro
CBI FL1 Camp Tournament 2016-07-01 PF R2 Fisher D'Agostino & Lugo Baron Sheerer & Medina Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2016-04-30 PF Qtr Poly Prep Country Day AA Mission San Jose KW Con Con 3-0
Tournament of Champions HS 2016-04-30 PF Oct Walt Whitman AA Poly Prep Country Day EH Pro Pro 2-1
Tournament of Champions HS 2016-04-30 PF Runoff Summit MW Delbarton AH Pro Con 2-1
Tournament of Champions HS 2016-04-30 PF R7 Mission San Jose KW Millburn CP Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2016-04-30 INT R1 Edgemont BS Northland Christian NL Pro
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF Octas Madison West BR Brookfield East BN Con Pro 2-1
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF Sextos Christopher Columbus AL Anderson RS Pro Pro 2-1
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF Sextos University School Ohio ST Cypress Bay BK Con Pro 2-1
The Glenbrooks MS 2015-11-21 PF R6 University School Ohio WD Blake AK Pro
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R4 Eagan DM Brookfield East MB Con
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R4 Oak Hall GS St Mary's Hall EV Con
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R3 West Orange SS Colleyville Heritage LJ Con
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R3 Miami Beach Senior KW Lakeville South AR Pro
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R2 Chesterton HW Lake Highland Prep LF Con
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R2 St Mary's Hall RF Nova CM Con
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R1 West Orange LL Choctaw WM Pro
The Glenbrooks HS 2015-11-21 PF R1 Ransom Everglades SM Lake Highland Prep SN Con
Badgerland Debate Tournament HS 2015-11-13 PF R6 La Crosse Central FB Janesville Parker BR Con
Badgerland Debate Tournament MS 2015-11-13 PF R5 La Crosse Central LT Blake Kh Con
Badgerland Debate Tournament HS 2015-11-13 PF R3 Blake LO Appleton East LP Con
Badgerland Debate Tournament MS 2015-11-13 PF R2 Blake LM West Bend East MW Pro
Badgerland Debate Tournament HS 2015-11-13 PF R1 Brookfield East CH Madison West AL Con
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Quarte Walt Whitman WW Lake Highland Prep NL Pro Pro 3-0
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Double Lake Highland Prep NL East Ridge BZ Pro Pro 2-1
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Round Mission San Jose KC Marist HM Pro
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Round Middleton MD Chanhassen PS Con
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Round Harker CP Maple Grove Senior JP Pro
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Round Bettendorf HS Eagan ST Con
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate HS 2015-11-06 VPF Round Presentation MK Middleton BO Pro
CBI Camp Tournament 2015-07-02 PF Octas Huang/Katz BA Waters/O'Shea HS Neg Neg 2-1
CBI Camp Tournament 2015-07-02 PF R4 Herskowitz/Williams PL Rao/White MH Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2014-04-26 PF R6 Regis HM Ardrey Kell BT Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2014-04-26 PF R1 Ridge GS Nova MC Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2013-04-27 PF R5 Bronx Science BS Ridge GS Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2013-04-27 PF R4 Harker KV Walt Whitman SP Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2013-04-27 PF R2 Newton North EK Pine View AB Neg
Tournament of Champions HS 2013-04-27 PF R1 Leland BD Wellington GG Neg