The Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
JV/MS Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)
LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)
Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)
Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)
-Put me (email@example.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)
-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool
-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.
-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space
-I'll boost speaks for:
-Pre-round disclosure w/ round reports and cites
-Showing me quality flows for the round
Show me either AFTER the 2AR, but BEFORE I submit my ballot. Emailing required info is okay for online debate, but just tell me on Zoom that you wanted extra speaks
-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.
-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.
-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be
-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool
-Write prep down on Zoom chat
-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview
-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded
-Don't call me judge or sir
-Quote I stole from Gomez:
I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.
-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something
-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”
-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.
-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense
-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp
-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more
-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun
-Its probably best to functional and textual competition
-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato
-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate
-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to
-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me
-Ks should have specific links to the aff
-Links of omission aren’t a thing
-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery
Theory / T
-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.
- Current thoughts on common theory issues
-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable
-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's
-International fiat good
-Consult Process CP bad
-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations
-Word PIKS bad
-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on
-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful
CX Specific Notes
-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that
-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate
LD Specific Notes
-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.
-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments
-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified
-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please
-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR
-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge
-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.
-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”
While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.
It is the debater's burden to make sure that speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.
The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.
As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.
Just don't speak too fast.
I am a parent judge. I’ve not formally trained to judge but have learned from experience and look forward to learning more.
How you conduct yourself and treat others is very important. Be courteous, respectful, fair to your opponents, and professional. I have sometimes given, and thankfully not yet docked, points for this.
We can't always control every aspect of our environment but, particularly if we’re online, do your best to eliminate distractions so focus is not pulled from the speaker.
I understand fast talking due to time or nervousness but I prefer normal speed so everyone can hear and grasp what is being said.
Assume I know nothing about your topic and make your case clear to me. Prove your assertions – be logical, reasonable, and name your sources.
Use this experience to practice using your voice and flexing your perspective and personal style; it is what makes you unique. The fact that you’re here is impressive… own it!
I am a parent judge
I am an experienced parent judge.
1. Clear speaking that is not too fast.
2. Evidence is clearly explained to support your arguments and don't forget to highlight your impacts.
3. Incrementally advancing your idea, while invalidating/outweighing opponents ideas.
4. A good cross examination is key.
5. The deciding factor for me is the cross examination, wrapping up with a clear explanation on why you outweigh your opponent.
6. I flow the arguments and I'm listening carefully, so if you drop an arguments, I will know :) In other words, check your flow before saying your opponent dropped something.
7. Come prepared! Be organized, and let me moderate the debate. Show up ready to debate.
8. Speak assertively, but don't yell :)
THE FOLLOWING IS FOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:
run what you want. I'll adapt. Spreading fine - slow down for tags and warrants.
K>Theory>Larp/Phil>Trix>>>Hyper Specific Disclosure Shells (ie they disclose cards + authors but you want cards + anayltics + grey highlighting). as long as you disclose taglines im chill tbh
I don't default to anything
trix is a type of cereal
no rules in debates except speech times
email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
THE FOLLOWING PARADIGM IS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE / LAY / NOVICE DEBATE:
speak clearly, speak however fast u want. i can flow. i do LD rn. make sure you terminilize ur impacts. tell me why impact XYZ matters. skip the value debate it doesn’t matter. weigh under both your fw and your opponents. impact calc. good luck.
+0.5 speaker points for every debate related joke in your speech
NOTE: IF U ARE AN ADVANCED MS DEBATER AND KNOW PROG AEGUMENTS PLS DONT ABUSE UR OPPONENT I WANT DEBATE TO BE AS ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE AND WILL NOT BE AFRAID TO DROP U FOR RUNNING ABUSIVE STRATS AGAINST A NOVICE/TRAD DEBATER
I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.
I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.
I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.
I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.
I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.
I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.
Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.
Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA
I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for seven years, judging it for thirteen. I like it. I also coach/judge Parli (five years) and have judged a number of PuFo rounds.
LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.
Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.
Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.
In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.
Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.
Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.
Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.
Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.
Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.
Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.
Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.