2021 — Bountiful, UT/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Contact: Feel free to email me or find me on facebook messenger with any questions about my paradigm/ballots.
Important stuff for all debates:
1. Speed: I don't care how fast you go, as long as your opponents are ok with your speed as well. If your opponents cannot understand you, then the round will probably be pretty boring for all of us, and the flow will likely be extremely messy. If you are going to be spreading, or attempting to, then I request that there be an email chain with myself and your opponents.
2. Other stuff: I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will weigh that in the round.
3. Speaks: I will likely be pretty lenient with speaks, if you ever get below a 27, you probably did something abusive or rude in the round. If this ever happens, and hopefully it wont, I will include my reasoning on the ballot. Feel free to contact me with an questions.
CLICK HERE FOR AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR.
PF or sometimes LD: If you do these three things, you will likely win my ballot. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask in round, or through my email.
1. Use effective clash: Clash in round is extremely important if you want to effectively respond to your opponents case, but also for my sanity as a spectator of the round. However, there is a misconception as to what having clash means. It does not mean that you have to make polar opposite claims to every argument your opponent makes in round, but instead means that you effectively weigh both yours and your opponents case in a way that makes my vote easier and less subjective of a decision. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.
2. Be consistent throughout the entire round: Making arguments in round that completely contradict something you said previously for a strategic advantage on the flow is kind of sketch, and it makes me sad. I won't drop you for doing so, but it will make me very sad; I might even cry. I want you as the debaters to be consistent with your arguments through the round. Think of your case as a story, and you are trying to convince me that your story is better than your opponents. This means that your warrants and impacts should be extended throughout the entire round, not just the summary and FF. If you feel like your opponents are trying to abuse the flow by making a bunch of contradicting statements, it is your job as the debater to tell me that. If you do not, I cannot take that into account on the ballot, despite how badly I may want to.
3. Weigh Weigh Weigh: The goal of the debate is not to convince your opponents that you are right, but rather to educate me as the judge on why your case is more important than your opponents. If you do not explicitly tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponents, then you leave it up to me to decide that for you, and you may not a agree with the way I viewed the arguments in the round. I will always believe what you tell me to be true, despite what I may already know/believe.
There are a couple of easy ways to do this in round. First is to quantify your impacts. Tell me how exactly, using evidence, how many people are going to die or how many peoples quality of life will be improved if I vote for you. Be specific. If all you tell me is that lots of lives will be lost, then I can not accurately weigh the scope of the argument. That could mean 5 people or 50,000 people, and it is up to you to tell me which it is. The second is to terminalize your impacts. This means that you should always take your impacts deeper than surface level. For example, if you tell me that the economy is going to be hurt, tell me why that matters. I can assume that the impact is bad, but I have no way to weigh that. What happens when the economy is hurt that I should care about as the judge? That is for you to tell me. Dig deeper with your impacts to make my decision easier.
Optional: I stole this from Hebron Daniel's paradigm and I will also be enforcing the rule.
- If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.1 speaks for interrupting cross.
Policy: Refer to what I said in the PF/LD section for most of what I care about. I don't care what kind of arguments you run as long as they are warranted. I would prefer it if you didn't use a K AFF, but I will not vote you down for it, I just usually think that they lead to generally boring rounds. Be specific on where you want me to flow arguments, it makes my life so much easier. Finally, include me on the email chain please. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me in round, and the worldstar cross thingy will also apply in policy.
(Updated For Silver and Black)
First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.
If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.
tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this start snapping your fingers.
Speed: Yeah speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.
Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)
On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.
Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.
I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to comparative worlds over truth testing
Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.
Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.
If all debaters ask me then I will disclose both the round and speaker points
If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.
I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after
Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.
My name is Sugar, I am currently an assistant coach at Davis High Debate. I graduated last year, after competing at Davis Debate for 3 years. I’m currently a freshman at the U of U. I love debate and judging it, so please reciprocate that energy.
I mainly competed in LD for all of my debate years. I qualified to nats in LD, all three years of my debate career and broke my junior and senior year. So trust me, I know what I am doing. You don’t have to treat me as a mommy judge. I also have a pinch of policy experience, so I am familiar with certain prog possessions.
- Love LD with all my heart. Arguably the best debate event.
- Signpost. (can’t believe I have to say this but many people don’t know what signposting is so...here I go...tell me where you're at on the flow).
- I prefer trad arguments, but I’m ok with you running prog arguments. Just make sure that you know what you’re doing and it is accessible. If you run a far too prog arg against a novice that doesn’t quite understand what you are running, I'm sorry, but I won’t evaluate the arg. Please be as inclusive as possible.
- K’s. Not a fan unless it is specific to the round such as a speed k, extinction k, and so forth.
- CPs are ok. If they’re Mutually exclusive and outweigh. I am also swayed by CP Bad theory and will prob end up voting on it.
- Line by Line Judge. You win the flow. You win the ballot.
- Yes, you can time yourself.
- Ok with speed. Not ok with spreading. You should know the difference. If you spread and someone runs a speed k against you, you better start packin up cause you most likely just lost.
- Framework debates have become repetitive. If your value is societal welfare and your opps value is societal progress, feel free to just concede the fw debate and move on. It’s not as important as winning on substance. However, fw can be used to your advantage. I’m not saying its never important, it is the lens through which I view the round. If you are running something obscure that gets backed up by your fw then you should absolutely extend and argue your fw.
- Also I hate the way debaters are extending cards. I could care less if you have five authors that all make the same argument. If your opp attacks the main argument, then don’t get up in your speech and say “my opp dropped four cards extend the Johnson evidence which states…”
- You don’t have to give me voters. Voters should be incorporated into your rebuttals as you go down the flow.
- Feel free to collapse if you think it’ll win you the round. But just know that I do like to judge the round based on how many arguments were won.
- Please don’t run phil cases. I don’t wanna hear 6 min of Kantian ethics.
- Tech>Truth but why not be both
- I really like T, especially in LD. I don’t know why judges hate Nebel T, cause I abs like it. If you run it well, you could win my ballot.
- Please cut your cards correctly. If I catch you falsifying evidence you will receive an L with 20 speaks. To add onto that, make sure your claims are actually backed up by your evidence. I hate seeing cards that are like:
o Trump…wag the dog…tensions increase…lying to news reporter…only a matter of time…could lash out against the public…war is inevitable...numbers game… (if your card looks like this you’ll lose the round, I don’t care how you creative you are when it comes to cutting cards)
- If you run a nuke war extinction scenario. It better be really really really good. Cause I hate having to judge such a low-prob impact scenario. If you don’t take into account deterrence, motives, alt causes, international geopolitical stance, and so forth I won’t buy your impact.
- I usually like to fill out my ballot during CX but that shouldn't undermine its importance. I am still paying attention and yes CX is binding (why wouldn't it be binding). However, I don't flow CX if you want an argument to be on my flow you have to bring it up during CX.
- disclose prior to the round.
- firstname.lastname@example.org yes put me on the email chain. but I flow off of my ears and not my eyes. So if you don't speak clearly I won't take a second to go through the doc. If you could have the email chain set before the round I'll grant you an extra 0.5 speaker points.
- Spreading is ok. But be inclusive and be clear. Slow down on taglines and analytics.
- K's. um just be careful and run them correctly. Be inclusive.
- not a perf judge.
- High prob low magnitude scenario > low prob high magnitude scenario
-cut your cards well please
-tag team cx is ok
- Analytics > Cards. By far. I could care less if you have multiple cards making one argument, if logic and analytics is sufficient to take down the premise you'll lose on the arg.
-signpost and give an off time roadmap. I can’t believe I have to put this in here but so far out of all the policy rounds I’ve judged in our circuit No one has signposted correctly. Please please please signpost.
For other events just ask me during the round.