The Betty Gunn Tournament at Mountain Brook High School
2024 — Mountain Brook, AL/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideFor email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com
I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.
I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.
All events
• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.
• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.
• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.
• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.
Public Forum
• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.
• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.
• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.
• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.
• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.
Lincoln-Douglas
• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.
• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.
• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.
Policy
[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]
Counterplans/theory:
• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.
• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).
• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.
• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.
Kritiks:
• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.
• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".
• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.
Topicality:
• Caselists, plz.
• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.
Hey, I'm Catey Rose!
- I am pretty trad and I really do not like spreading, or theory. Plans are fine, just make it clear. Disads that lead to extinction should have a strong link chain!
- Collapse!! Give Vorters!! Make sure you weigh impacts and answer framework!! :)
- I don't care if you stand, sit, or whatever in round. I am good with most speeds, I have a background in LD, BQ, and congress but I do prefer slower talking.
- I believe debate is a training field-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity.
- You guys are gonna do great!
SOOOOOOO TRAD.
wells.finch1020@gmail.com for the email chain
Experience- Debating LD, PF, and CX for six years with a little bit of congress and IEs sprinkled in
I went to Mountain Brook High School
Ask me questions after the round bc you likely won't see me again
Progressive stuff-idc just know what you're doing
Tech>truth (you still need decent warrants)
DONT READ A PARAPHRASED CASE
Give an off time road map, something like "neg then aff", not "I'm going to start on my opponents advantage 1 and refute this and that and then go to their advantage 2 and do that and this". That's too long, I'll give low speaks for that
Sign post-if I don't know where you are, I can't flow what you're saying
I'll time you but I'm not going to cut you off. I stop flowing after about ten seconds, but you can talk for as long as you feel like, it'll just be a waste of our time.
Dont be mean in cross
Cross- If it isn't brought up later in round I won't evaluate it
Read a case with cut cards
Speed is fine
Give me weighing in pf especially
Clash is super important
Feel free to text me if you have questions after round or if you think that I should know something before the round.
(205)-517-3521
Ask me anything beforehand if you are confused or have any other questions
If you say anything sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, etc I'll drop you with a 0
TLDR
Rising college freshman, did debate for six years
I know what I'm doing, read whatever you want to
she/her - vestavia ’26 - sendyouranalytics@gmail.com
1 yr pf + 2nd yr ld
novices stop going for progressive arguments you don't understand, i'm sick of it. auto 27.
i flow on paper by ear, but tell me before the round to flow on computer if you will make the debate a blipstorm. if i forget to bring paper, i will flow on the computer. i will not eval args based on things in the doc but not said out loud. FLOW!!!
---
policy
best for anything policy. process cps that only require changing the cp text to read on a new topic should lose if debated evenly (which often does not happen). inserting rehighlightings is fine, but explain verbally what you think the rehighlighting says. i will read ev after the round if and only if there is a dispute over what it says. condo is probably good, but could be persuaded otherwise. everything else copy pasted from parker traxler's old paradigm:
Theory args other than conditionality are reasons to reject the CP, not the team, and better phrased as competition args.
The AFF does not get "intrinsicness tests"---those are called counterplans. You are not the NEG. Stop being a coward and cut cards.
Evidence matters a lot to me. If you are slightly ahead on spin but they have vastly better evidence than you do, you are in an awful position.
I default judge kick unless the AFF says otherwise.
Zero risk is possible, but usually only when a blatant concession has been made (ex: the NEG concedes impact d). You can get close enough to zero for me to assign it functionally "zero risk".
Permutations don't have to be explained in the 1AR. Competition is a NEG burden.
I am unlikely to be persuaded that CPs require solvency advocates.
Your vague CPs will not be received well.
Dispositionality is not "whatever you want it to be". It means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight-turned the net benefit.
theory
say it with me: mina is a theory hack. there is no such thing as frivolous theory. (except spec. i am willing to vote on it if mishandled, but spec shells are probably bad.) non-res theory bad > reasonability. everyone seems to think that rvis are fake but they seem logical to me. straight turning every standard is underrated. don't drop theory args bc i think they're game over issues. relevant paradigm issues must be read in the same speech as the shell.
phil/tricks
not opposed to phil, but not very good at evaluating it. i try not to hack but absent dropping calc indicts or something similarly important, i will probably end up erring util bc that's what i'm most familiar with.
will eval tricks but i will be unhappy and so will you when you see your speaker points. 1ar restart is cool vs annoying ncs. if i dont flow it, it doesn't exist. i'll say it again: IF I DON'T FLOW IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST.
k
bad for the k. i went for cap a grand total of one time, and that was bc fwk was entirely dropped. i have never heard a persuasive arg against plan focus. if your k does not need fwk, that is called a da + cp. alts that morph in the 2nr warrant new 2ar arguments. if you must go for the k, do it like ansh sheth.
even worse for k affs. t-fwk is true. good for both fairness and clash. also good for heg/cap/etc good, process cps, piks, anything except kvk. i will not be annoyed by spec shells and tricks because i will be more annoyed by the aff. if i do not understand what the aff does, i will vote neg on presumption.
Hi guys! My name is Hope, and I am a senior at Vestavia Hills High School. I am a third year varsity in debate. I have a lot of experience in Big Questions, Congress, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum, and I have competed in World Schools as well. Just a few preferences:
Win on the flow. tech > truth
Keep track of your own time.
I don't mind fast speaking or spreading, but make sure you emphasize major taglines, points, statistics, and author names. If I don't hear the tagline, the argument/card will not flow in the round. If you are going to spread, send your doc.
Make sure to signpost and give an off-time road-map.
I do not flow cross-ex, so if you want something to be incorporated into the ballot from cross, make sure to bring it up in another speech.
I like framework debate, theory debate, and substance debate.
I am not as familiar with Ks and tricks, but I do know what they are. Speak slowly and really explain during more progressive arguments so I know how to evaluate them.
Don't forget to weigh.
My email is hopeajohnson07@gmail.com for evidence and case chains.
Don't be rude and have fun! Good luck!
tech>truth
Defense is not sticky.
I don't flow crossfire.
email for chains: amahatsente@gmail.com
I believe in Tabula Rosa
Please keep your own time
Use stopwatches not timers(please don't be obnoxious with it. I am not flowing after the end of speech +/- 5 seconds)
No racism, sexism, or homophobia. Please do not be discriminatory.
Otherwise, everything goes as long as you give me a good reason.
I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to
General Prefs:
Larp 1
Ks 2
FW/Phil 2/3
Theory 2/3
Trad 4
Tricks 5
I am a Senior at Vestavia Hills High School in my fourth year of debate.
Tech > Truth (helps to have quality author credentials for evidence weighing)
my debate prefs:
- policy,th
- msv, trix
- phil, Ks
- anything else not on this list
Framework- I am familiar with Util, Structural Violence, and Kant in that order. If the framing debate is a wash I will default to cost benefit analysis.
Do NOT be X-phobic, racist, sexist, etc.
If there is an email chain, please add me, my email is 00thomaspatton00@gmail.com
I am fine with speed as long as you send the doc to me and your opponent. Speak clearly, otherwise it will be harder for me to flow your args and harder for me to vote you up.
Please be polite to your fellow debater.
Extend your args, signpost, and weigh in rebuttals.
Give an off time road map before each speech.
For Novice
Don't stress, this is your first LD tournament so just use this as a learning experience and remember, to have fun!
I'm an LD JV, so I typically know what's going on, PF, not so much but I'll try my best
- Please don't spread to the point of not being able to be understood
- Speak loud but like don't scream pls because my hearing is kind of trash so I might be like tilting my head toward you when you talk
- Impact weigh!! (If you're in LD)
- I'm gonna be real I don't really like progressive debate, but that really shouldn't be issue as y'all are novices
- Tech > Truth
The best way to my ballot is to weigh. Weighing is inherently comparative. Warrant your weighing and compare links/impacts to your opponents'. If both teams have offense left by the end of the round, I need to know why yours matters more. This is also true with weighing mechanisms themselves (I appreciate meta-weighing). The earlier you start weighing, the better. I don’t get why teams say, “I’ll weigh at the end if I have time.” This makes no sense. Weighing is a crucial aspect of the round.
Run whatever you want. Theory should be used to check abuses. I won't auto-drop the K, but I wouldn't call myself the most qualified in K-debate. I don't see this a whole lot in PF, so the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you need to explain it to me.
Any speed is good, just be clear.
Please don't give me a soliloquy for your "off-time roadmap." Just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on.
Signpost in every speech following the constructive. If I look lost, I probably am.
I don’t pay attention to cross. If something important happens, then bring it up in your next speech.
For the love of god, give me warrants and extend the warranting throughout the round. Literally everything needs warranting (case, responses, weighing, framing, evidence weighing, theory, etc.). I do not understand why more teams do not spend more time at the warrant-level.
Offense needs implications.
Evidence clash is good. Tell me why your evidence is better/more important.
Collapse. The. Flow.
If you don't frontline, it will be incredibly hard to win my ballot. Not impossible, just very difficult.
If you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary. This is true for extensions, weighing, framing, etc. If you drop it, you will be hard pressed to find me evaluating it by the end of the round.
If we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. Some speed is okay, but I really value clarity when online.
I just finished my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School
Top Level Stuff
-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com
-Debate is a game; win the game
-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point
Policy
-I'm good with pretty much any type of argumentation, as long as you convince me why you win
-I'm good with speed, and I will look at speech docs, but if I can't understand you, I won't flow
-Ask me any specific questions before round if you have them
PF
-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event
-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well
-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.
LD
-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc
-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on
-Generally comfortable with progressive debate
-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.
Hello!
I’m a student at UAB studying economics, but in high school I was the vice president of debate and a varsity PF debater. The most important thing to me is clarity during the round. If you are speaking too fast and I can’t understand what you are saying, I will not be able to flow it and it may cost you the round. Also, make sure to be respectful to your opponents. I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. comments. It will cause you to automatically lose. I don’t flow cross so if your opponents bring up something you want to use, you must bring it up in a speech. Make sure to weigh the round and that you flow across your cards throughout the round. Please do not bring up new evidence in your last speech since that is unfair to your opponents.
Concerning speaker points- speak clearly and annunciate well. Don’t let your words run together when you are trying to talk fast. I also value when a person uses their whole time.
Good luck + I look forward to watching y’all debate!
EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org
Former policy debater in HS and College (2012). These days I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but primarily influenced by this policy background.I am open to most arguments and will always try to meet halfway, but unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. I generally don't vote on things that happen before the debate or at least announcement of pairings.
Speed is usually fine at 7/10 but need to be clear. Debate is a communication-based activity and my hearing is not as great as it was a decade ago. Sending speech docs is not a substitute.
Lay/PF: I'm most likely fine with whatevver you're doing, just prioritize offense and impacts.
===Tech LD===
Cheat Sheet - 1 = I feel comfortable judging these judging this; 5 = yikes!
Policy - Plans/DA/CP - 1
K - 1
K Aff - 1
Impact Turns - 1.5
T - 2
Theory - vs CP's/K's - 2
Theory - Disclosure/Wiki Norms - 4
Phil - 4.5
Theory - Friv - 5
Tricks - 5
-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.
-K: Most of my debate career and graduate work was spent in this literature base, but you shouldn't assume I know your specific lit or that I am willing to fill in explanatory gaps when making a decision. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links, even if your actual link evidence is making more sweeping claims. I'm interested in what the alternative resolves and what it means for my in-round decision-making if you win framework.
-K Affs: Generally believe the Aff has to advance some testable method beyond "res is bad, reject the res." More interested 1ACs whose engagement with the res already features nuanced, built-in answers to common neg args as opposed to overly relying on generic preempts. I am fine with kicking the advocacy and going for theory of power + offensive voters against the Neg's position, just as a traditional Aff can kick the plan to go for condo or discourse K's.
- T vs K Affs-- Much more persuaded by clash, skills, topic education, and trickier offensive reasons for why the model is good than fairness. I generally believe most standards on T are internal links that the Aff is probably impact turning. Best 2NRs on T will still neutralize case and any theory of power arguments that help with the disads to T/exclusion.
-Theory : Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I don't care for disclosure and wiki procedurals unless Aff won’t disclose the aff when asked before round. As for friv theory, I have never voted on it, and it usually results in low speaks, so proceed with caution.
-Phil : You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption. I don't mind saying "I didn't get it, so I didn't vote on it" even if I think you're rhetorically or technically winning on the flow.
hey guys!! im elizabeth (she/her) and i did debate throughout high school. im now at the university of alabama studying political science and philosophy on the pre-law track. i think debate should be dictated by the debaters, not me, so i try and keep things pretty chill.
tech>truth, tabula rasa and all that stuff
email: elthurow4@gmail.com
FOR EMORY:
- i am primarily a judge in alabama on the local circuit. i am familiar with the function of theory, ks, trix, etc, but i'm not by any means super experienced or knowledgable when it comes to prog. ive seen plenty of disclosure shells, and have judged a few k debates, but if it gets to like heavy phil im probably not the most amazing judge. feel free to run prog, but you NEED to overexplain, send speech docs, and be okay with running the risk that i wont understand.
some things:
- framework and defense extensions pls (ill listen to defense is sticky args but i default to it's not)
- clear voters brought up in the back half
- idc about speed, just send a doc and be articulate
- actually bringing up evidence to contest someone's bad evidence, don't just say "the evidence is dumb" and move on, you MUST implicate
- when it comes to extending cards, pls extend the tagline and not just the card name
- spicy cross is fine, just know where the line is
- being homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. will lose you the round, debate should always be inclusive
- this is not life or death, pls dont make the room feel like it
- jokes are appreciated :)
dm me at @elizabeth_thurow or email me if you have any questions
(or just follow my insta for funsies)