National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK
2018 — KY/US
Surajit Amrit Paradigm
Michelle Bashian Paradigm
Katie Blowers Paradigm
Experience - Competitive: HS LD, Congress, DEC, Poetry, and Biomedical Debate. Judging: Middle school and novice debate, HS LD
Style and Speed - I debated primarily on a traditional circuit, so prefer traditional LD. Don't just throw debate terms at me - explain them, I will probably already understand them but you opponent and future judges may not. DO NOT SPREAD. I can follow if you speak quickly, but if you start spreading I will probably miss things. If I put down my pen it means you are speaking too quickly. I don't need a road map before speeches (you can give one if you want) but signposting throughout your speeches helps me with following your speech and flowing. I would like to hear KVIs from both the AFF and NEG.
Evidence - I consider evidence to be a key part of an argument - it provides legitimacy for your claim. That being said, do not just throw a piece of evidence in with out a warrant.
Drops - I hate debaters saying that their opponent dropped a card - you don't drop cards you drop arguments/contentions. If there are actual drops make sure you explain why those drops are important.
Framework - I think framework is as important as you make it. Both opponents need to agree to either engage or not engage in framework debate. if one does and the other doesn't I will go with the framework of the debater that made it important. Make sure your framework is clearly and logically explained so that everyone can follow; especially if it is detailed philosophy (I don't love philosophy excluding Hobbes). Your arguments need to link back to your framework, if it doesn't its hard for me to prefer it.
Cross-X - Be civil, there is a difference between assertive and aggressive. Cross-examine, know that the cross-examiner can cut you off; Cross-examiner, don't abuse that power. I don't like PF yelling matches.
I will not base the round off decorum, there may be a penalty in speaker points. I like clean, engaging debates filled with clash. Debate the resolution and areas relevant to the resolution, kritiks are generally not relevant.
Don't be problematic/make problematic arguments.
If you have any questions or clarifications, please ask me before your round.
Daniel Ciocca Paradigm
Please add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please just slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.
Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic
Counter-plans: All good.
Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.
Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.
DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here
T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.
Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.
Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed
Stephanie Ciocca Paradigm
I am a parent judge with experience judging at local and national tournaments at the varsity levels. My daughter competed for West Broward FL in LD for four years. She started off in PF so I have judged both. More LD than PF. My judging philosophy is simple. I believe that an ordinary citizen should be able to listen to the reasoned arguments of debaters and come to a logical conclusion as to who's argument and evidence is more persuasive. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can handle a little faster then conversational) and supported by convincing evidence.
Plans- I'm ok with basic topical plan texts, but nothing non-topical
Counter-plans- I'm okay with cps.
Be careful when arguing a Perm, there needs to be a clear explanation as to whether the Aff and the Neg plans are or are not mutually exclusive.
Ks- willing to listen to a K as long as there is a clear link, not some generic link of omission.
DAs- I am perfectly fine with them just again be clear and concise
When debating please make sure to sign post and slow down on your tags. That way I can make sure to get as much of your argument on the flow.
Tricks - NO
Theory - only in the case of legitimate abuse as I really hate theory debates.
Please ask questions if more clarification is neededðŸ˜€
Carol Fields Paradigm
Clark Foster Paradigm
Alec Foust Paradigm
• Speak at a reasonable pace. I understand that you have a time limit and that you can't be idle, but there is a difference between speaking quickly and creating a rap album. You will not win if I can't understand you.
• Be aware of your persona and style. Your case's content will primarily decide who wins the round, but content composes just one part of an argument. Be as rhetorically effective as possible: have a strong, clear, concise speaking style; pose a defendable thesis-centered argument; maintain eye contact; and act professionally. You could have the most well prepared case, but if you present it poorly, you will quite possibly lose.
• Don't be disrespectful. This point coincides with the second point, but I cannot stress enough that disrespect will make me want to vote against you. This does not mean that I don't appreciate sass - I do, and I think that sass can make a debate more interesting - but you need to be able to differentiate between harmless sass and a hateful tone. If you can't present a case without being hateful, then your rhetorical skills are disturbingly underdeveloped.
Jeff Hannan Paradigm
I am the current director of speech and debate at Evanston Township HS.
From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.
I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.
I would like to be on the email chain (email@example.com), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you are spreading theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.
I will make decisions that are good if:
you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.
I will make decisions that are bad if:
you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.
I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.
I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.
I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.
PF: if it's in the final focus, it should've been in the summary.
Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.
Any other specifics, please ask.
Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (it literally says that you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, which means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time.
A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.
A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.
A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.
A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.
A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.
Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.
Jaime Jenkinson Paradigm
Jenkinson, Jaime L.: Unaffiliated
School Strikes: Saint Francis High School, Eden Prairie High School, Champlin High School
I tend to vote on what the debaters crystalize as voters, which should be issues, and not values, isolated cards, etc. However, my default is to evaluate the round based on standards and their extensions.
Theory args should be supported by qualified/quantified proof.
I’m fine with speed that is clear and does not threaten depth of argumentation, as I prefer depth over spread- and only encourage it to the extent that it creates greater depth. I will not vote for arguments that I don’t/can’t understand, and I appreciate links back to the standard(s) to be very explicit and direct. I also will not vote on drops that have gone unimpacted, and expect that prestandards are warranted. I'm hesitant to say this, but competing frameworks tend to go aff in my mind.
I’ve been out of the game for a few years, so new jargon needs to be expressed in a way that I can follow. I cannot emphasize enough to BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR JARGON.
If you run an off-case, make the reasoning clear. And do not kick your entire case in front of me- it's aggravating and makes for bad debate.
Karunakar Kona Paradigm
Ramesh Kumaravadivel Paradigm
Edith Lui Paradigm
**I am a tabula rasa judge**
Competitive: 4 years HS LD, PF, and Congress
Judging: 3 year of judging in LD
Coaching: Instructor at Classic Debate Camp
Style and Speed - I highly prefer the traditional style of LD, but I can follow progressive most of the time. DO NOT SPREAD. I am able to follow speeds on the faster end of the spectrum, but I really would like to clearly hear and flow your arguments so a speed that is a little bit above conversational would be totally fine. It'll be clear when I cannot flow. Finally, signpost and road map throughout the round as it helps me with following your speech and flowing. THIS APPLIES TO PF TOO! If I can't flow, then it will not go well for you.
LD: I really appreciate and value the use of evidence to aid an argument. However, do not just throw a piece of evidence into the round for the sake of doing so - aka explain it and tell me how it links back to the main argument.
PF: Of course, evidence is a must. However, PLEASE also explain it and impact any card you use. If you just spew a card and don't take the time to explain its relevance to the argument or the round, I will not take the time to consider it.
LD: I will ALWAYS consider the framework debate as I think it is the foundation of LD debate. Make sure your frameworks are clearly and logically explained so that I, and your opponent, can follow. If your case or arguments do not link back to the framework, it is harder for me to buy it.
PF: If you do not implement some sort of mechanism or framework for me to weigh the round off of, I will use a cost/benefit analysis based upon your arguments and rebuttals. Also, tell me why your framework is effective and why I ought to prefer it in the case your opponent brings up a different one.
Please be civil. I do not mind debaters being assertive for the most part unless it goes overboard. You will be safe as long as you are courteous, respectful, polite, etc. Although I will not based the round off of any factors relating to decorum, there may be a penalty in speaker points.
Overall, be nice. I love clean, productive debates filled with evidence, logic, and obvious clash. If you have any questions or clarifications, please ask me before your round.
In addition, to prove that you have actually read this paradigm and that it wasn't a waste of my time and effort, pro should use protentions instead of contentions (nvi, I just want to be entertained).
David McGinnis Paradigm
I spent a bunch of time before New Trier 19 writing a policy paradigm and in the one round I got the aff read "queer eroticism" so I am done trying to explain to policy teams how to adapt to me. Those of you who would strike or otherwise depref me because I am an LD coach: good call. Those of you who would refrain from striking me and then read "queer eroticism": please reconsider.
I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.
I coach students on both the local and national circuits.
I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.
I'm most familiar with philosophical framework debating, but you can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing.
UPDATE JUNE 2019: AND IMPACTING!
Evan McKinney Paradigm
I debated for 5 years at WDM Valley. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am attending Iowa State University to study Computer Engineering, Physics, and Math.
Overview: You can literally do whatever you want and I will do my best to evaluate the round as tab as I can. I can flow fast only if you are clear. I am comfortable with any argument being made in the round, but would prefer that your arguments follow some sort of logic or justification. I debated framework and theory, but feel fine judging any type of debate. I decide a winner by evaluating offense to what ever framing mechanism is won in the debate, therefore doing weighing will put you ahead.
As a debater I was most comfortable debating under a truth testing, debate is a game paradigm. I will not vote for you because you run a trolly a priori. I will vote for you if you run a trolly a priori and win the argument as a voter.
I only consider arguments made in the round. If I don't understand an argument I will not vote on it. I will not do any work for either debater. Do not let the debate get to that point and you'll be fine.
Tips and Tricks for a Big Win:
1) I have bias for arguments I think are creative
2) Making it clear what offense you are going for (including overviews/voters) makes it easier for me to give you a ballot
3) Have fun and be nice
4)Don't say hyperreality is bad
1) I will average a 28.5-29.5 (not sure how high this is so it may change as I become a more experienced judge)
2) 27- ok, 28-good, 29 -great, 30 -best
3) if you want speaks please ask me privately after the round and I will tell you
Felix Raj Paradigm
Parent volunteer judge with 3+ years. Primarily PF but have judged LD too. Speed is not an issue but if you spread, you are taking a risk.
Treating all debaters with respect is critical to me. Any demeaning behavior towards opponent will have a very negative impact on speaker points.
Stacking too many questions and not letting opponent respond will backfire you. What good is a cross-fire question if it does not expose opponent's weakness for the judge to observe ?
I like strong arguments - pro or con does not matter. I will never have an opinion about the topic - my judging record will speak for itself.... Good arguments will always get the win.
I prefer not to disclose results unless I have to. In ballots (both e-ballot and paper) my observations/thoughts/notes will have "**". When a sentence does not start with "**", that is the feedback.
Jen Tarnowski Paradigm
I am a parent judge who has judged only traditional debate. While I can understand faster than a conversational pace, please do not spread. I will not vote for something I can't understand. Also, I much prefer if you debate topically, and will not vote on non topical affs. I do not like theory and am not likely to vote on it, and I will not vote on tricks or skepticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!
UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 2019:
(Written by Joey Tarnowski)
So as of now, there's probably a little more argument flexibility to be had. Skep, most theory args (the more friv, the worse) and basically all kritiks are probably a no. Also you should prob keep spreading to a minimum (read: DON'T DO IT) but kinda fast is prob alright. Most non-cheaty cp's are probably okay, but pics and advantage CPs will just need a little explanation. Disads are fine, but the strat here should prob be more of a "turns case" strat than an extinction scenario. The more links in the link chain, the less likely it is you'll win on it. T on plans is probably fine, but you should prob default to a reasonability standard cause the stuff about frivolous theory applies here too. TLDR; most util strats are prob your best bet, but probability>magnitude should be what frames whatever you're running.
Marie Wetzel Paradigm
LD: Traditional. This requires a value and value criterion that flows beyond the constructive. I will generally vote against theory, ks, and other policy debate components. I will always vote against disclosure theory - sorry kids, no cheating on the test.
Speed doesn't bother me. I was a policy coach for years. HOWEVER, if you sound like you can't breathe or are repeating words because YOU can't handle speed, it will affect your speaker points and how I assess the round. As a judge, I decide who wins or loses. As such, your speaker points will be lower if you tell me what I will do in your speeches. Convince me to vote for you rather than thinking if you say I will, it will happen.