OCSL Novice
2017 — Santa Ana, CA/US
Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi everyone!
My name is Scott Hong and I am a junior from Fairmont Preparatory Academy. I know you guys don't want to spend 10 mins going through a high school kid's paradigm so I will make it short.
Quick Intro ->
I've been doing debate specifically Public forum for about 3 years now and I've competed in the national circuit for 2 years.
Flow ->
I do flow in round. I don't flow cross fire but I will listen. If anything important is mentioned in cx, it must be mentioned in your speeches again for me to vote/weigh it.
Rebuttal ->
You are not obligated to frontline (defend) your case if you are speaking 2nd. Just make sure you do so in summary.
Summary/Final Focus ->
Summary and Final Focus must match. If there is an argument that you want me to vote for, it has to be mentioned in your summary and final focus for me to vote for it. If there are any warrants/turns you are extending, make those extensions clear for me. You must also explain the warrant behind the card that you are extending. Don't just say "extend Jacobi in 2017." Tell me why that evidence is important and why I should vote for it.
Weighing ->
Weighing is not necessary in summary but it is better if you do. It makes my job and your partner's job easier. For final focus however, weighing must be done in 4 ways: Magnitude, scope, timeframe, and probability. Make your voters clear and do a comparative world analysis.
Be explicit about impacts and weigh them.
Be clear about framework - lay it out then use it to your advantage.
Be strategic - perm when you need to, use the refutations to stock arguments that you prepped wisely.
If you are going to spread, include me in the email chain.
Background: I'm currently a college student who did debate in high school. If your entire case is one that was prepped by someone and you don't really understand your arguments, I can see through it but at the end of the day it is up to your opponent to prove that to me. Debate is about helping the person who is listening to understand why they should side with you- not about being aggressive towards someone who is saying there is a flaw in your argument.
Speaks: Be respectful. Speak clearly.
Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.
About Me
Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.
I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.
Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.
You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.
General
Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.
The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.
Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.
Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.
Rebuttal
Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.
If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.
Summary/Final Focus
Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.
Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.
Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.
If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.
"Progressive" Arguments
Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.
Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.
On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.
I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.
Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing
Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K
Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)
Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.
Hi, nice to meet you!
In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.
I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!
If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:
General/Important Things on How I Judge:
-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.
-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.
-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them
-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.
-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.
-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.
-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.
Background on Me:
-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).
Case Debate:
-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.
-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.
-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.
-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.
-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)
Theory:
-It should make sense and be specific to the round.
-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)
-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)
Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.
-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.
-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.
-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.
-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.
-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.
-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.
Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.
25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).
26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.
27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.
28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.
28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.
29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.
30: You were godly.
This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.
Clash is key
Extend your arguments, weigh impacts, give voters
I will vote for any calculus, but make sure to link your impacts back to the framework, I'll buy any
argument if you sell it to me
Don't read frivolous theory
K's are fine, but you must read alt solvency, and why your opponent links
If your opponent drops an argument, and you explain why that's key to the round; then that will be a big part of my decision
Do not spread; I will tolerate fast debate, articulation is key, but if you're trying to spread and you're slurring, I will stop flowing
Don't read preponderance of evidence, if you're going to repeat the same point over and over again, you might as well just sit down early
Don't read new arguments in speeches you shouldn't be, I won't flow them, I take point of order very seriously
PF:
Don't be rude during crossfire
I don't flow crossfire; it's only for your benefit, not mine
I'm cool with plans/advocacies but only if you justify it
LD:
I prefer if you don't run morality as a value. I won't automatically just drop your value IF you do, but I prefer you don't either way
I don't flow cross ex; it's only for your benefit, not mine
Flex and running prep is fine
Framework clash will be a big part of my decision
Plan or resolution focus affirmatives, both are fine
I'm fine with theory, but I usually won't vote on theoretical abuse unless either: your opponent drops the shell, fails to provide counter-interp/standards, or doesn't prove how your interpretation is bad for debate
Any other questions, ask before round.
Did PF for 4 years, ask specifics in-round. I haven't judged nor debated for the last four years, so feel free to update me on changes in practices / how stuff has changed since moving online.
1. Absent other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
2. Quality of arguments > quantity of arguments (esp in the latter half of the round). I really value strategic decision-making. Basically, make choices for what argument to go for in the summary and weigh heavily.
3. I'm open to alternative types of argumentation if that's what you are interested in. Just make sure you can explain it well without relying too much on buzzwords.
4. Please don't misrepresent your evidence. It's your responsibility to ensure it says what you say it does.