Region 8 Tournament
2021 — NSDA Campus, UT/US
Debate (LD and PF) Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideIve got nothing I just know I want to say: I’m not lay. This isn’t policy. Don’t be dumb. Make an argument. Make sense. I like creative arguments. No, I don’t know the topic. Plus, you are supposed to make these topics accessible.Truth over tech. Love spicy args. I will call for cards at the end of round that I think made the round. I like a good framework debate Go as fast as normal for PF/LD respectively. I should be able to understand you even if you are spreading. CLARITY OVER SPEED!!!!
A lil about me :)
I debated PF in high school and debate in APDA at the collegiate level. At one point, me and my partner were actually top 5 in the nation, so pls don't think I don't know what I'm doing or argue over the ballot. I'll happily answer questions about how you did as a debater, but don't ask about the round.
I went to debate camp in Boston and attended the TOC twice. I was also big on starting PF Ks so if you've got em, bring em.
Excited to be your judge!
Celia
amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu
ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:
1 - Policy/Traditional
2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)
3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)
5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)
- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things
- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.
LD at the bottom:
Just call me Aidin
UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!
LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)
TLDR;
I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces
I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.
Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story
I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!
Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure
Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win
Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.
- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.
PF:
Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.
BIGGEST THINGS
- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.
- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo
- It's not an argument without a warrant
- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.
- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.
- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.
- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.
- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF
- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.
LD:
LARP
Solvency
DAs need to have solid internal links
Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked
Perms need to be contextualized
K's
A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.
line by line analysis is of the utmost importance
explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy
Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.
AFF - please extend and weigh case
Theory
I love the theory. Few caveats, however.
1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.
2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.
3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.
4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.
5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort
6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.
How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott
How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor
How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson
What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone
What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott
Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away
Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.
In all events, I'm happier when I can understand what you're saying. Speak clearly and slowly and make a great argument. I'm about sportsmanship, good eye-contact and thoughtful debate.
I'm an experienced (lay) judge, but I like when you treat all judges with kindness—and assume we know less than we do.
Background
I competed for American Leadership Academy in PF for four years, and I am now in my sophomore year of college at UVU.
General
Warrant your evidence well, especially if you are a fast speaker. I can't vote on things I can't hear/understand.
I know this is unorthodox in PF, but I enjoy a good framework debate.
Unless you have a good reason please stand while you are speaking, if you decide to speak while sitting, I will dock speaker points.
I expect all the participants in the round to know how to argue without quarreling, how to quarrel without suspecting, how to suspect without slandering etc.
If you are going to pre flow, make sure you do it before. I won't delay the round for you.
Time yourselves.
I am okay with off time roadmaps as long as they are brief.
Case/Rebuttal
I appreciate creative cases and frameworks if they are well-executed. I won't vote on it, but it could get you some extra speaker points.
Creative Framework=anything other than Cost Ben
You can speak as quickly as you need, just make sure your taglines are clear so I can get them in my flow.
Signpost! Signpost! Signpost! Make sure you always clearly describe where you are in the flow.
Summary/Final Focus
Copied from the rules of PF.
Summary Speeches: "New evidence, but no new arguments may be presented, except responses (refutation)."
Final Focus: "no new arguments may be presented; however, new evidence may be introduced to support an argument made earlier in the debate."
The Final Focus speech should write my ballot for me. Don't spend more than 30 seconds talking about the flow, instead stick to broad arguments that you feel define the round.
Crossfire
I sporadically pay attention during crossfire, and I don't flow it. So, if you feel something important was said make sure to bring it up in a speech
Be respectful.
Ask real questions and refrain from making statements.
Speaker points
I generally give twenty-seven's to the losing team and twenty-eights to the winners. If you want to get more, do the following things.
Creative Strategy.
Warrants and Sign Posting.
Referencing Vines/Memes (Levity is nice in a debate round.)
Speaking with clarity.
A Guide to my facial expressions
Face in my notebook/computer= I understand what you are saying, and I am recording it.
Looking up, pen in hand=you are saying something interesting and I want to fully understand it.
Pen down, arms folded=you are saying something confusing or wrong.
I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.
In-round Preferences:
- Weigh.
- Collapse.
- Weigh.
- Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
- I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
- Weigh.
- Please be consistent with your warranting.
- Offense must be in summary and final focus.
- Weigh
- Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
- Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
- A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
- Weigh.
- I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.
- I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.
Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.
Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.
My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us