2021 — NSDA Campus, UT/US
CX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.
I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.
Graduated policy debater
If y'all are flashing I’d like to be included. (firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains) If not I reserve the right to ask for cards.
tab/tech over truth (However, if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ablest, etc. I will automatically vote you down and give you low speaks. if it's severe enough I will stop the round completely.)
Ks- I'm fine with K and theory debate. I'm well versed in common kritiks but make sure you can explain your theory in an accessible and understandable way. Frame the debate and make me understand why I should be voting for you. Framework debate is my favorite thing to do and to watch. A good framework debate is a good way to get a good ballot.
Impacts are EXTREMELY important if you can’t weigh your impacts it’s going to be hard for me to vote for you.
If you can’t use independent thoughts to back up your cards your cards are useless.
Tag teaming in CX is fine but don’t talk over you partner please. I probably will pay attention to CX but please bring up the points you made in your speech or I won't vote on them.
If it’s not your turn to talk BE QUIET. I don't care if you whisper to your partner but you should NOT be talking in a way that distracts from the speaker.
Don’t steal prep, don’t ask questions after the timer went off for CX, and don’t be condescending please.
Speed is usually ok but if you are talking too fast I will tell you to slow down. If you continue to talk too fast I will stop flowing.
Have fun and enjoy what you're doing I promise it makes all the difference.
A brief introduction before the meat of my paradigm - I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I've been the 2A, the 2N and double 2s, so I understand everyone's plight. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and am now a student at the University of Utah and coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: email@example.com
Brief rundown to get the gist:
Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not
I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people
Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)
You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy
Impact calc is huge
I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks
You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct
I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.
No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.
In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:
REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG
A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.
Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.
The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.
I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.
K Affs and Neg FW
Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.
I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.
Where I lean on most common theory args-
Debate is probably a game
Condo is probably good
Conditional planks are probably bad
Perf con I'm pretty neutral on
Speaking and CX
SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.
Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D
Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.
Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.
Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.
I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!
Email for email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My legal name is Michael Hunter but I go by Geo Hunter.
Yes, this is the correct spelling of my name, pronounced "Joe"
A little about me:
Debated for George Washington High School ('15) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Participated only in CX for three years.
Judged at a handful of tournaments during college years, primarily in the Intermountain West.
I graduated from Utah State University with a Bachelor's in Social Studies Teaching
I currently teach AP and core Geography at Cyprus High School in Magna, UT.
I'm an assistant speech and debate coach at CHS, primarily maintaining the Policy Debate/CX event at CHS.
T- I feel T can be an interesting debate, if debated accurately. If the T is in the 2NR, you better be going for it. I won't vote on "What sticks" The Aff though has a responsibility to acknowledge it.
The K- I'm a traditional Policy person. I don't read up on philosophies/arguments beyond the general K's. I will vote on the K if the Neg does an exceptional job of explaining it and the Aff does poorly in arguing against it. I'm not too versed on abstract philosophies. I enjoy more Cap/FEM-IR/Sec K's if the link is explained. I will listen to framework and weigh impacts more than the typical judge. Aff cannot throw a hundred framework cards at the K and expect me to vote. Explain thoroughly.
Same goes for Critical Affs, explain as much as possible.
CP/DA- I enjoy clash! These are the best arguments to listen to. Politics is a +. Do a good link story please, and Aff should capitalize on a bad one.
Theory/Condo- I will have an Aff bias if the Neg runs 10 CP's, I think a K, CP, DA and ample Offense/Defense on-case is an ideal debate round. I will value framework/theory on the Neg side too in the event of a critical aff.
Speaker Points- I always give high speaks in Novice rounds. Varsity is based on your individual performance. If you act like you were engaged in the round, were courteous and threw in a joke or two, you'll get high 28's and low 29's. If you are a complete jerk, condescending to opponents and act like you are not engaged, your points will reflect that. I do not hesitate to give LPW's to jerk teams. I will make a note on the ballot and notify your coach if it was severe.
Prep- I expect Varsity teams to monitor their times. I will keep track, but will not notify you of speech time. If you say you are done prepping and are flashing, there should be no movement from anyone except the speaker. If people are prepping during flashing, I will doc those points. I will resort to flashing ends at the removal of flash-drive from computer if need be.
With that being said, ask me questions before the round!
My name is Ty, I use He/Him pronouns.
I am currently a freshman in college. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school. I know nothing about the topic this year, so please explain your positions well to allow me to correctly evaluate your arguments. I am generally ok with speed, however, it has been a while, so please make sure that if you are speaking fast you are CLEAR.
As a debater, I mainly debated policy arguments rather than Kritiks, however, I will listen to your Ks if you choose to run them, I simply will need you to explain well why the K matters most in the round/why I should be voting for you based on the K.
In order to convince me to vote for you please make sure you explain how I should evaluate the round, and why your team wins based off of this framing. I don't want to have to extrapolate what matters most from vague comments that are not well explained. If you have questions about my opinions on specific types of arguments please ask before the round, but I will generally evaluate any argument as long as they are well-argued.
I debated and coached eons ago (I was last seriously involved in policy debate in 2010), when nerds roamed campuses with tubs and dolleys, the Bush or Obama DA could be a winner, and I had more expandos than friends.
I have gone for, lost on, and voted for much worse arguments than y’all will make. I think I’ve only been off-put by the truly bothersome and silly—think, Schopenhauer and timecube (please, for your own sanity and long-term success, google neither). But as the previous paragraph implies, you should slow down on tags and non-carded arguments. I married another debater, so my ear for speed is not entirely gone, but it has diminished. And I flow on paper.
If you’d like one, my philosophy was incoherent when I did judge a lot, so I just stole a better one from my coach, Ken. See below:
While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases. As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.
I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan. I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.
On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations. I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better. The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.
I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors. You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do. Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens. Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.
I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement. PICs, agents, etc are fine. There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out. Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.
K's and K affs with plans are fine with me. I am not that familiar with much of the literature. So, you should explain things thoroughly. Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.
Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot. Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses. 2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.
Please be clear. Start speeches at less than full speed. Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags. I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made. Please do not get quiet when reading cards. I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.
I am a parent judge.
I have judged previous tournaments and would like to ask that you prioritize clarity over speed so I can better understand the content of your arguments. In the previous tournaments I have judged, I found that spreading/spewing made it harder for me to gain a better understanding of your arguments, even with flashed documents in the round.
I appreciate the effort that you all put into this activity and will do my absolute best to adjudicate the round.
***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***
Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.
I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years
***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***
I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.
Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.
I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round
Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.
I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg
I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.
Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.
Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.
Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)
Good Trump impressions +1.0
Bad Trump impressions -2.0
I find myself thinking paradigms are less and less important recently due to either an abundance of information that makes them impossible to parse through in a reasonable amount of time OR the information provided doesn't help anybody involved. Therefore, I will say two things and attempt to avoid these pitfalls, even though undoubtedly I will fail.
First, I will for nearly no reason insert anything I think independent of the debate round into my decision or evaluation of said round. I don't care if you think something is a bad argument or morally suspect, if either of these things are true in context of the round it should simply be easy to beat. This applies to most all things, illogical or not. This also means I have a low threshold for what needs to be said to beat a bad argument. If the DA they read doesn't have a link to the AFF a one sentence response will suffice.
Second, debate is a game that you can approach however you would like. Because of this you should attempt to win in anyway possible. PIK's, theory, cheating CP's are all fair game if you can defend them (some are easier to defend then others of course).
Additionally I will briefly add, my speaker points scale is fairly average (majority high 28's), but an easy way you can increase this is with humour. What ever happened to debaters being funny and persuasive in round, and why aren't these two things more intricately connected with one another? Also, don't go faster than you know you should, slurring your speech at 400WPM will not help you win a round, focus on making good concise arguments with less filler and you won't need to force yourself to talk at Mach 10.