Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24

Email: goskonda24a@ad.unc.edu

Contact me if you have any questions with the email above

***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.

General

I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.

Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).

Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Flow stuff

-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.

-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.

-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.

-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.

-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.

-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)

-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.

-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication

-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.

-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary

At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.

Progressive Argumentation

I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.

-CIs>reasonability

-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it

-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)

Miscellaneous

-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.

-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.

-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.

-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks

-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks

At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.

If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.

Good luck!

Email for email chains: ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.

- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.

- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.

- Cx is binding.

- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4

TLDR: Tech > Truth

********* This is in my paradigm but ill add it again because I dont want you to lose on some goofy technicality.... you need to fully extend your arguments. You cant just frontline and move on. After frontlining you have to extend your argument. *********


| PLEASE LINE BY LINE | PRETTY PLEASE SIGNPOST | EXTEND FULL ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | I WILL VOTE ON ANY ARG THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIONARY |

come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done unless you have a paradigm question

Pretty standard, here are some general things to do:

1. if its in final focus its in summary

2. frontline offense in second rebuttal. I won't make you but it's advantageous because of the next thing.

3. 1st speaking team, if the 2nd speaking team doesnt frontline defense/turns, please listen to me on this... defense can go straight to final focus. If a turn is dropped by them, and its not in summary, you can still extend it into ff as defense (if it's truly a turn its prolly terminal defense). As such, assuming 2nd speaking doesnt FL, 1st summary should be almost purely offense. If they do FL, then you gotta have the defense in first summary.

4. Extend the entirety of an argument. Have the whole story in there, don't assume parts of the argument even if they drop it. If they drop it, you can be quicker on the extensions that are predicated on concessions, but still do them (re-tell the warrants). Although itll prolly help, i wont force you to extend author names as long as you properly signpost and extend your arguments in totality.

5. There are two ways i can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isnt needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy and do actual comparative analysis, and please even justify why i should prefer your weighing over theirs. I'm also inclined to reward good internal link debate. With that (and the following is bolded for a reason) PLEASE DO NOT USE "WEIGHING" AS AN EXCUSE TO READ NEW LINK TURNS. Idk what happened to the circuit but this got increasingly prevalent last year, and is even more prevalent, from what i can tell, this year. Thanks.

6. Speed: Please send a speech doc if its either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it wont help you when i get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS.

7. DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of yall accidentally do this anyways cause people dont read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. If the 'DA' is a big turn that truly applies to their argument, dope. If your rebuttal is "iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn tHrEe Is..." then please abstain. I already said im cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in the first constructive.

8. Theory: admittedly im not an expert, but im definitely familiar with theory and ran it a few times in my debate career. if youre reading theory just keep that in mind. If reading theory, structure it properly. If responding to theory/youre reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isnt an excuse to undercover it though. Also if youre concerned i (again) default to RVI .... keep this in mind ig.

9. Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, Ive read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. I just say I prefer util cause im less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.

10. Speaks are subjective. if you read pure cards ill definitely give a bump

11. CX: its only really for speaker points. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

*Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with the decision*

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.