Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Heya! Just a friendly reminder to chill and have fun. Good luck!

Background:

I’ve debated 3 years of LD and 1 year of PF at Bettendorf High School.

Speaks:

(PF) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower based on strategy on flow, being able to be slow and clear, word economy, GOOD WARRANTING, etc. I’m alright with reasonably fast speeds. I’m only ok with hardcore spreading if

1. It’s an outround
2. If all the judges, debaters, and possible audience members give their ok as well.
3. You disclose.

(LD) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower mainly based on strategy on flow. I'm ok with spreading, just make sure your opponent is ok with it as well. I’ll yell "clear" if I have to. Just disclose the doc to me if you can.

What I’d like to see in a PF round:

TLDR version:

Crystalize to main 1 or 2 impacts -----X------------------- Not collapsing

More args on flow to make ur opp inevitably drop one -----------------------X- Less args but better quality

Flow based ---X--------------------- Non flow

Stock args ----------X-------------- Weirder args

Taking time to check evidence X------------------------ “You’re wasting my time”

Necessary spreading ------------X------------ Normal/slower speaking speed

Sole contention case --X---------------------- Too many contentions

Will listen to CX -----X------------------- Won’t listen to CX

Theory ---------------X--------- Anything else

Non-TLDR version:

-Give me a roadmap and signpost clearly.

-I’m a flow based judge. Which means some real BS can start if you miss a really important FW/observation.

-2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal.

-Choose whether or not you go line-by-line or collapse to a specific arg. However, I HIGHLY VALUE WELL EXPLAINED WARRANTS AND WEIGHING. The clearest, sole reason for why I should vote for you in summary/FF is the best way to win the ballot.

-I’m open to any type of unique/weird argument, but I prefer really well run stock args. Don’t waste my time with poorly run theory/K shells unless you are absolutely committed to making debate better and more accessible.

-I will allow first speaking teams to extend defense from rebuttal to FF but it isn’t preferred.

-CX does affect speaks. Avoiding the question, not giving an answer, not being productive, or just being plain rude will tank points.

-Evidence is SUPER IMPORTANT. Call for it and take your time. I dare you. I’m not afraid to intervene and drop a team if the evidence doesn’t say what it is supposed to say.

What I’d like to see in a LD round:

TLDR version:

Tech ---X--------------------- Truth

Policy ---------------X--------- K

Theory ----------------------X-- Substance

More cards ---------------X--------- Less cards

Conditionality bad ---------------X--------- Conditionality good

Topical case ---------X--------------- Non topical cases

Fairness is internal link -----------------------X- Fairness is an impact

Line by line -----X------------------- Long overviews

Phil cases X------------------------ Literally anything else

Non-TLDR version:

-I'm much more accepting of the line by line in LD instead of a super long overview. This doesn't exclude basic weighing tho.

-I really really love well run stock phil cases.

-I also love Ks -Policy type args like DAs and CPs are also fine.

-Honestly, I’d prefer if you don’t go into a theory/T debate. If there is significant abuse occurring, go for it.

-Overall, just have good impacts/analysis. If you are an ex-policy debater who is really bad with comparing warrants/impacts of a stock Kant NC, you will lose the round. Framework makes the game work.

-I won’t hold it against you or anything but plz disclose if you can.

If you are a novice:

-Just remember to WEIGH your case vs your opponents (use the word weigh).

-Also to EXPLAIN what your arguments and show how it impacts the round as a whole. Don’t just repeat your claim.