Tabroom.com

Alabama State

2024 — Hoover, AL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alastar Adams Auburn

Dan Bagwell Mountain Brook High School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:39 AM CDT

For 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.

Jordan Berry LAMP HS

Catey Rose Callahan Vestavia Hills High School

Kelly Cimino Hartselle High School

Chris Colvin The Montgomery Academy

Daniel Commander Alabama School Of Mathematics & Science

Michael Fain Auburn

Last changed on Wed August 28, 2024 at 5:30 AM CDT

faindebate@gmail.com

Auburn ‘16-‘20

Auburn University ‘22-‘26

Prefs:

1 - theory

2 - larp

3 - trix

4 - k

5 - phil

Strike me if you are a traditional debater.

Intro:

My name is Michael Fain (please refer to me as judge, Mr. Fain, or Michael, in that order). I competed in LD for 3 years and have been judging/coaching for the past 4. My background as a competitor was entirely based around hacky arguments, trix, and baiting theory. As a judge I have gone through many different phases of what I like to get out of rounds and what I am most comfortable listening to. For the longest time I was a hack for trix, this is no longer the case seeing as trix debaters use this to run relatively dense phil and not explain it. The pref chain above is accurate and should be used for big tournaments. As a judge I evaluate the round according to how I flowed it based off of the information that was given to me. I fully believe that a close round with many different layers of offense with 11 of the most qualified judges will result in some sort of judge split. I believe that I side in favor of the majority in these rounds as my squirrel rate in tech rounds is something like 1/100. That being said, I will score the round in my rfd’s about what I think the split would be, and could provide reasons why my contemporaries might vote the other way. All judges value different things, we all hear the round differently, so as long as its close on the flow there is always the potential for a split ballot.

Preferences:

Performative - I am hard of hearing in my left ear, this does not affect round outcome, however, you are responsible for being a mindful debater and positioning yourself in the room to be heard.

I am traditional insofar as debaters ought not look at each other when speaking, should formally address the judge, should stand to speak if able, and should appropriately use their prep time (see below).

Strategic - My voting record and past RFDs indicate a fee tendencies. I am comfortable voting on very small issues with little to no risk (best examples would be like ivis on reps, conceded spikes indicting speech validity, any accessibility arg). For some reason this tends to mean I vote neg more often.

LAYERING:

After having almost 30 different iterations of my paradigm I have settled on this being the only relevant section that ought to be read before a round, anything else can be asked via shared email chain between myself and the competitors before the round. Proper LAYERING and weighing is the only thing that matters when it comes to my ballot. It is your responsibility to defend your offense as the highest layer in the round, and if your offense functions on the same layer as an opponents, why your impact should be weighed as greater. Too many times is there floating offense on different layers where the procedural “rules” of debate force theory to come before substance. Maybe I don’t judge enough but it appears that gone are the days of policymaking good frameworks dueling against the K. I do not need to be scratching my head at the end of a round asking myself whether or not the K or T is top level. The battleground of the round is normally not on a link level in the rounds I judge, and if it is, enough time is not spent explaining it. The real clash is on which offense flows above the other, youd be best suited to spend your time on that.

Donovan Frazier Westlawn Middle School None

Anna Manasco Mountain Brook High School

justin mccleskey Hire

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 6:25 AM EDT

UPDATE FOR ALABAMA STATE: I dont really have time to check my disclosure explanation that well. If youre confused, think it doesnt make sense, or are have any concerns, you can email me at jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu and I'll get back to you ASAP!

Debate Background

Debated Independently for Decatur Heritage, AL (2019)

Args I used in high school: https://opencaselist.com/hsld18/DecaturHeritage/JuMc
If the link does work, the 2018-2019 archive has my senior year args.

B.A. Political Science, UA (2021)

Alabama Forensic Council and Alabama Debate Society Competitor
Undergrad Thesis was on the role of Kritiks in the Debate Space

M.A. Public Administration, UA (2023)

Occasionally coached and judged for Alabama Debate Society

Judging Habits

- Do whatever you want. I dont care if you stand, sit, lay across the desk or whatever in round. I should also be good with most speeds, but if I need you down I'll just keep saying slow until you're at a level I can flow.

- I've engaged well enough with most arguments to become familiar with them, but that doesn't mean you should avoid basic argument structures. I'm most versed on Ks, but that also means I have a decent threshold for them. I'll judge the round based on how you tell me I should :)

- If you're planning to spread, it would be significantly easier for me to flow if you could throw me on the email chain (jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu). I keep a decent flow but please don't assume I instantly know which card you're talking about unless you slightly explain it (or its a big factor in the round).

- I believe debate is a training field and an educational activity first-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity. Essentially, go for whatever route you're comfortable with, but be prepared to defend its utility. This activity can be really elitist and this a route to address it. Even paradigms that try to make this activity more accessible end up adding on jargon that benefits larger programs.

Looking to do Speech/Debate in college?

Let me know. UA has a team that competes in both speech and debate, and a separate organization focusing on providing debate resources and coaching to developing debate programs. Both of these have funding potential and are super accessible no matter your experience level. I can also connect you to some other programs (and just generally like talking about the different spheres of this activity on the collegiate level).

Miriam Milan Hire None

Shannon Murphree Prattville High School None

Katy Olienyk Prattville High School None

Laurel Pack Hire

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 10:43 AM CDT

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity public form debater 2020-2023. Current JV policy debater at Samford University.

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Paradigm

Line-by-line/reasons to prefer are super important to me when extending T into the block. However, I ask that you slow down and annunciate clearly on the T arguments that aren't carded. I also generally lean aff on T, so long as they prove being neg isn't impossible and there is a substantial literature base.

Condo:

Contradictory condo is your strongest story if you run condo. Otherwise, unless condo is not responded to at all (or not responded to sufficiently) I will probably have a pretty difficult time voting on condo over substance of the round.

CP Theory

CPs need to be competitive with the aff and the neg has to make that clear. If I think the CP can happen in the same world as the aff, I probably won't vote neg on the CP. I also don't belive in judge kick, the debater should have to do the strategic work in the round and decide if the CP is worth going for. I also think there should be more focus on CP framing, should the CP solve all of the aff to be sufficient? Not sure. Don't ignore the top-level stuff.

Kritiks:

I think affirmative should defend a plan, ideally this is a topical policy action. I am not a judge who is comfortable judging a kritikal or performance aff. I am also probably not a good judge for a k v k round. I am most comfortable evaluating the K on the neg. I also prefer alts to be specific. My ideal alt would be to advocate for a specific movement or mindset that can proveably resolve the impacts of the aff. Please don't make the alt "reject the aff." The alt should do something. Finally, please don't assume I'm an expert on the literature base you're reading from, you will probably have to walk me through the links clearly and make sure you spell out how we get from point a to point b.

Final Thoughts:

Don't be unethical. No arguments like climate change good. If you read authors who are morally questionable I will absolutely drop the card and will be willing to listen to a procedural about it. I also won't read cards after round unless there is a dispute about what the card says/what it means.

PF Paradigm

TLDR:

The team speaking first should start an email chain with everyone so exchanging cards is easier. If you're disclosing cases, the case should be a PDF or a WordDoc.
If your team is doing the second rebuttal, you MUST frontline (spend about a minute on it). No new frontlines should be read in the second summary.
Your final focus should only be going for 1 of the arguments presented in constructive. Pick a scenario and stay with it, this should be done in summary.
When you are going for an argument in final focus, every part of it should be extended (uniqueness, link, and impact). An argument without any of those components is not very useful.
If someone reads a turn, even if you are not going for that argument, you HAVE to respond to the turn before you drop the contention. I consider it offense if the other team decides to point it out.
SUPER IMPORTANT: Don't look at me in cross exe when you're answering a question, the feeling is reminiscent of when people sing happy birthday to you but you don't know what to do.
Be nice :)
I tend to make a lot of facial expressions, please consider them ALL neutral. I have really bad eyesight, most of the time if I look like I'm confused or angry, I'm probably squinting to look at something on my computer. I also worry that I tend to look angry but please don't let this discourage you (I'm most definitely not angry).
Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round if you have any, I'm always happy to explain things

More info:

Constructive: Not much to note, go as fast as you feel comfortable. Warning: I find it really difficult to vote for cases with just one contention (unless it has multiple subpoints) I also very rarely see good cases with three contentions. In 99.9% of cases, the third contention is just one card which wastes time (this time could be better spent reading another card on either of the first contentions).
Rebuttals: A strong line-by-line is key to the ballot. You should have one or two responses to every point of their argument (uniqueness, link impact) (Signposting is also really important here, please tell me exactly what argument you're addressing). When you give an off-time roadmap, stick to it. Don't say you're starting on their case then start time and go to your own case. This was mentioned above but if you're going second, frontline pretty please.
Summary: Having a good summary is key to not losing a round. My ideal order of a summary would be collapsing (identifying which scenario your side is focusing on for the rest of the round + responding to any turns read), then immediately weighing the scenario you are going for, and then REALLY in-depth frontlining on everything they read against it in rebuttal. Then, move to their case, talk about why you outweigh any of their scenarios (pre-requisite or turns case arguments are really useful here), and then extend your rebuttals. Note: Summary is a super difficult speech, don't feel like the round is over if you miss one of these things, all will be well. Also, I'm really suspicious of new arguments in the first summary (unless they're frontlines) and I do not accept new arguments in the second summary. If the other team points out you made a new argument in second summary, it won't be evaluated. I will also probably evaluate that argument last, even if they don't point it out.
Final focus: Extend all the parts of the argument/scenario you're going for and then WEIGH. Literally, be so dramatic during this speech. Ideally should be split half and half between your case and their case, covering their case should focus on what you think are the MOST devastating arguments (arguments they didn't respond to or the ones you find most compelling)
Cross exe: Please please please be nice. There is nothing I hate more than a super-aggressive cross exe. You can be witty, and sassy, and funny, but there is a very big distinction between that and angrily dominating the conversation. Also, cross exe is binding if the other team points it out (i.e. don't concede the entire case in cross because you think it won't matter).
Misc. Thoughts: I am constantly saddened by the state of PF. Debates become really repetitive and very surface-level. Clash and creativity are the easiest way to win my ballot. I will 9/10 prefer the smarter, well-thought-out, and compelling argument to one that's super polished but really insufficient in warranting or links.

Micheal Posey Mountain Brook High School

Abby Shumate Auburn

Jim Sydnor The Altamont School

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 7:43 PM UTC

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included. Tabroom file share and other mutually agreed upon platforms are greatas well!

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but entirely influenced by policy background. This paradigm is written with this in mind. I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I am convinced is a path to the ballot.

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-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: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-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 have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-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.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" misses the point. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not time effective. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Joey Tarnowski The Altamont School

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 1:41 PM CDT

Updated for 2024 season. Yay debate! :)

If you’re at a local tournament/traditional LDer/PFer, please scroll to the bottom

Email: joeytarnowski [at] gmail [dot] com

he/him

I did policy at Samford (class of 2024), qualified 4 times to the NDT, and did 4 years of LD in high school.

I was coached by Lee Quinn, and some other judges/debaters who have influenced how I think about debate throughout college (non-exhaustively) include Brett Bricker, Erik Mathis, Ana Bittner, Ari Davidson, and Bennett Dombcik.

Debate is confrontational in nature so things sometimes getting heated is inevitable, but I really strongly dislike when teams make it a major point of their in-round ethos to be unnecessarily mean/hostile/condescending. We're all just here trying our best at a very hard activity we all (hopefully) enjoy.

General

Line-by-line, impact calculus, and evidence quality and comparison all matter a great deal to me. Well-researched and prepared strategies (regardless of ideological content) will almost always be a better choice in front of me than generic or poorly researched strategies. I think the aff should say some implementation of the resolution is a good idea, and the neg should say that the aff is a bad idea.

I generally consider myself tech over truth, but I also strongly believe that arguments start off only as strong as their initial warrants. I'm generally predisposed against arguments that are reliant on extremely sketchy/pseudoscientific evidence (i.e. climate change good), but if there's an argument you're confident you've got the goods on, go for it.

There are very few arguments I categorically won't vote on: death good, RVIs, and egregiously unethical impact turns like racism/sexism/other forms of bigotry good.

**I have some minor issues with auditory processing, so I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also greatly appreciated.

Specifics

I tend to lean neg on most counterplan theory debates and usually default to reasonability and judge kick, but I'm more than willing to flip on either of those. I'm pretty unlikely to vote aff on condo bad unless something egregious happens (i.e. an extremely excessive amount of 1NC options, lots of condo planks, blatantly contradictory options, or 2NC CPs out of straight turns). I generally think most other theory debates are better leveraged as offense to help win the competition debate than as a theory argument on its own.

I don't mind T debates and think they can be very strategically valuable. Evidence comparison is even more important to me in these kinds of debates, and I generally find specific visions of what the topic looks like under your interp (i.e. a well fleshed-out caselist) to be very helpful.

I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some material implementation of the resolution. The specifics of what that means can be debated out, but I'm usually not a huge fan of strategies that just choose to ignore the resolution altogether or don't have an explanation of what their model of debate looks like and how research/competitive incentives look like under that model. Fairness is an impact, but impacts still need warrants and impact calc.

Indicts to util/consequentialism/cost-benefit analysis should also be coupled with an explanation of how I should evaluate impacts absent that framing.

Otherwise unethical/shady tactics including hiding arguments, lying about disclosure/not disclosing, etc. are not winning strategies in front of me.

---LD---

For the most part, all the thoughts expressed above should reflect most of my argumentative preferences, but I wanted to add a few LD-specific things.

I think my belief that arguments start off at the strength of their initial warrants is probably a bit more relevant in LD, as it means I’m generally less predisposed to voting on tricks/cheap one-shots/theory than most judges. Pointing out that an argument does not have a complete warrant is good and reasonability gets a LOT more compelling against theory arguments that rely hard on very marginal risks of offense/are just generally silly. I’m not afraid to vote down an argument because I didn’t think it had a warrant. Topicality has to actually define words in the resolution. I’m not voting on RVIs.

I would consider myself somewhat familiar with philosophy but don’t have a deep understanding of more niche philosophies, and I’m generally not super up to date with how “phil” positions are deployed in modern debates. I would prefer positions to have a couple fleshed out warrants than reading a billion one sentence arguments and hoping one is dropped. Blippy arguments sounds to me like you’re not confident in the positions you’re reading. I know some nuance getting lost is inevitable given time constraints, but that’s also why I’d rather debaters pick a smaller number of positions and flesh them out. However, I really love when debaters actually flesh out their position and explain the nuances of how it interacts with other things.

---Traditional Debate---

This is what I spent most of high school doing, and I really appreciate good traditional debate. You should do what you’re most confident in rather than trying to read something you think I’d “like more” because I did policy (I promise you, I’d rather a great lay debate than a bad policy debate).

How I evaluate these debates is fundamentally the same as how I would evaluate any other debate, a piece of evidence or explanation doesn’t suddenly become good or bad depending on the speed at which it’s delivered. However, I think a lot of traditional debate can get caught up in what you’re “supposed” to do at the expense of substance. For example, I generally think reading definitions in the first speech is unnecessary, and often framework debates do very little and could be conceded as early as the 1NC. For the most part, the more time you're spending actually talking about the resolution, the better.

Evidence comparison is fantastic and you should do it. I would strongly prefer that you are reading cards/direct quotes from the original source and have the original source available. I also would appreciate an email chain being set up (be confident enough in your arguments that you don’t try to hide them!), but if you choose not to, you should have your evidence ready for your opponent or me to read.

Collapsing down to your best advantage/disadvantage/contention in the last speech is much appreciated, as is spending a lot of time on the aff case. A 1NC that concedes framework, reads one disadvantage they’re confident in, and spends 5 minutes reading good, case specific evidence against the aff’s contentions would make me very happy.

Jackie Trimm Northridge

Login to Tabroom

Alabama State

2024 — Hoover, AL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges