about me:

did pf at hunter high school for 2 years and i really liked it

general stuff and stuff i like:

I like smaller scale impacts.

Weighing. weigh impacts please. weighing is also only useful if it is comparative weighing. don’t just weight impacts but weigh warrants too. Also meta weighing like probability vs. magnitude

really good analysis. good analysis beats a bad card 1000% of the time. calling for cards is off time. dont steal prep.

only do a road map if you are gonna do something really specific. Don’t waste time

im not good with speed. share cases and speech docs with me if you want. hit me over the head with things im kinda dumb

debate is an activity about communication communicate to me clearly why you are winning or should win. say something funny, rap, have an actual good round. just dont bore me to death and make me stare at the ceiling and beg for it to end

if its not in summary it cant be in final focus

people don’t extend stuff for some reason. reading a tag line or the author and year is not an extension. actually explain the arg Please have consistent extensions and don’t shadow extend

im more forgiving to first speaking teams. I’d prefer if you would front line in second rebuttal as much as you can at the very least respond to turns

i dont know how i feel about theory and Ks in pf yet.

im really generous with speaker points

if i can do anything to make the round more accessible let me know

stuff i dont like:

somethings don’t have to be said

definition debate is stupid

i don’t like cross. use it for whatever you like. dont use it to be annoying and scream at each other

supplement cards with analysis dont just read tag lines without the context of the debate

dont run framework if you are just gonna drop it in rebuttal. 99% of the time framework is dropped in like the second speech and if it is flowed thru to the end its inconsequential. if you are running framework warrant it. framework is bad for debate if you run some bizarre framework to cheese your opponents it makes it harder to judge. I much prefer you frame individual arguments.

dont pull some goofy garbage or ill drop you (up to my interpretation)

dont be rude if it is to much ill drop you. Civility is prereq to any positive educational debate round and I hate meanies there is a clear distinction between an intense round and just being mean. be nice to novices

dont break the simulation. debate is a game

in conclusion:

my paradigm is just a frankenstein of stuff from paradigms i like. hold each other accountable and use good fundamentals to win. if you have any questions about my paradigm ask me in round

tldr just be nice, have fun, weigh, and dont be annoying

Feel free to email regarding a round or help with stuff. always glad to help im married to the game.

bustamante78554@gmail.com

Hello,

My name is Sydney Dillon (she/her). I attend school at Michigan State University where I study Mechanical Engineering. I competed in debate throughout high school and for a year in middle school, providing me with five years of experience in PF, Congress, and World Schools.

In a debate, I will give the win to the team that is able to accurately, strategically, and thoughtfully complete arguments by carrying contentions/points on through the entire debate (this excludes arguments/contentions/subpoints/etc. that have been dropped during the round.)

Most importantly, please be respectful. I am all for a little sassiness, but please recognize a difference between being assertive and being outright mean.

Have fun!

This is my first tournament judging, but I have a pretty good idea what I'll be looking for: big emphasis on civility, logos, and staying on topic. Concerning logos, your logic should clearly make a clear connection between the facts, principles at issue, and your conclusion. Ethos and pathos are less important.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

I am a parent judge. I do not like excessive speed. Please do not spread.

I prefer clarity over speed and quality over quantity.

More Truth than Tech, but points for both. Additional points for persuasion and good style. Good style in my view is a cogent argument, marshalling supporting facts in a confident, but not arrogant, manner. Good style also avoids "like" and "um" as fillers when delivering. I understand the need to speak quickly on occasion, but expect all speech to be comprehensible. Debaters should not talk over each other. I am a practicing attorney and have two degrees in Philosophy. Thank you in advance for your time and preparation.

I used to debate so more could be expected from me than a parent judge. Speed is ok; however, make sure to prioritize clarity in the second half to make the voting less difficult.

Cohesion is important and can win the round, especially when people move onto meta-weighing instead of circling around established arguments. I do like non-traditional cases with critical theory, social justice, and framework, but such argumentation and framing must be established within the first speech and still evaluate the apposing framework. Teams that use such cases shouldn't just use these cases to earn ballots and be extra sensitive and knowledgeable. Ultimately, I prefer arguments grounded in the real world and palatable scenarios. I expect link chain arguments and extinction scenario cases to be fleshed out and allow for actual argumentation to occur.

Evidence is important and I will check it if need be, but evidence comparison should not be used to avoid argumentation. Do not abuse evidence.

VLD

I am a lay traditional judge - I understand the basics of traditional LD (value/criterion and contentions, and advantages) but I will not understand your spreading.

Please be tolerant and respectful. I will not tolerate any discriminatory/hate/disrespectful speech.