Golden Gate Invitational
2023 — Berkeley, CA/US
Open Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.
I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.
I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.
I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.
While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.
Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe
Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it
Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.
Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.
Competing Interps > Reasonability
Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org, and I am the Director of Debate at SDSU. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years and won some trophies, and now coach college and high school parli.
Thus the framework:
- I can hang. Spread, talk slow, read a K aff, do policy, read MG theory (NO MUST PASS PLEASE); I am not partial to any form or lack thereof of debate. Just tell me why you win.
- I tend to prefer arguments that make sense. If you can't tl;dr your K or impact scenario, I am open to hearing arguments about why that is a voting issue. I can get down with D&G but when it starts to be from lit bases I am not familiar with, you'll start to lose me.
- K affs are cheating but that doesn't mean they aren't strategic. - Gabe Graville
- I think that debate is a game, and games should be fun. This is why I uninstalled League.
- This includes not being an ass.
- I probably won't evaluate speed theory unless the other team is being particularly egregious. I believe that "get good" is a valid answer to speed theory, particularly in open NPDA. This is probably the only thing I am highly skeptical of in debate as a whole.
- If you read a performance, please garner offense from it. I am happy to evaluate performance, but please give me something to do with it. I am also happy to vote on identity-based arguments, just not where I am voting on a particular part of your identity.
- I am also not gonna vote for you if you read Schmidt or Heidegger. Nazis are bad.
- I read an Among Us K and had debates about stick figure drawings. I prefer to laugh during a debate round and not have to be super serious because I am not a super serious person.
- I ran a wide variety of arguments in my time. It was mostly Cap, Heg (US and China mostly), FW-T, Afropess, Econ, Tix, and squirrely topical affs. I like these arguments, but that does not mean that you must read these to get my ballot. You do you.
- That being said, cross-apply point 2a: if you start being violent towards anyone in the room or community. This includes but is not limited to: Being super aggressive during the round or cross-ex, intentional and/or repetitive misgendering, racial discrimination of any kind, or ableism. I will be 100% serious by not giving you a ballot to stop that rhetoric from proliferating, and your oral and written RFD will reflect that.
- I am sick of debaters weaponizing marginalized groups (especially black and queer folx) to win a ballot. Actually, advocate for their existence and inclusion instead of making dubious, offensive, and disingenuous arguments. It's 1) generally not an argument and 2) not something I will vote on. I will tank your speaks for this and I wholeheartedly encourage some of you to read a book.
- PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK :D
- Also, collapse in the PMR. I like a clean story, articulated clash and voters, and a clear collapse.
- Less important but I feel like you should know these:
- Topicality and FW are nice. Theory is meh. MG theory is even more meh. Condo and a-spec are fine by me.
- I am not particularly persuaded by theory positions that require positive action by either the aff or the neg.
- I like real arguments (Remember CDW?) - please read a warrant.
- I will be very happy if you do impact weighing. I will be very sad if you don't.
- If you read this far, you are probably not going to upset me in a debate round (which is a good thing!)
- If you ask me what my paradigm is immediately before a round I will be sad. I wrote it all out for you and you didn't want to read it. :'(
Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell
TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.
Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard at the tournament, 26 being you did not include major portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you.