Union Forensic Society Invitational
2019 — Tulsa, OK/US
Jon Baney Paradigm
Nick Bradt Paradigm
I use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.
Tyler Cauley Paradigm
Hey! My name is Tyler Cauley and I debated policy and LD at Mannford High School and CEDA/NDT policy at UCO. I will evaluate rounds purely on the flow as best as possible. I don’t have time to write a full paradigm right now (rip judgephilosophies) but if you have any technical questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Robert Lawrence Paradigm
This is the paradigm sheet I filled out on the wiki for nationals in Dallas 6 or 8 years ago. It's still fairly accurate, but I've probably evolved a little. Generally, what you need to know about me is that I was once very active at the regional level in debate, but as I've gotten older I now attend one or two tournaments a year at most. As such, I'll admit that I may not be current on the latest debate theory or arguments, but I've been around long enough to pick up most of what's going on. I pride myself on trying as hard as possible to avoid intervention and going by the flow. However, I will not abide disrespect towards other competitors, judges, or coaches. Have fun, fight hard, don't be a jerk.
Debate Background -- 4 years Charles Page HS outside of Tulsa, OK, 4 years at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, OK. Coached 1 year at Ponca City HS, OK. 10 years running a lab at Cameron University. I've also coached or assisted with programs in the Tulsa area (Jenks and Charles Page), and judged fairly consistently for 15 years.
Generally, I'd say my high school experience consisted of mostly in-state competition, with 6 or so trips to national circuit tournaments where we broke a few times. My college experience is mostly in CEDA at regional tournaments with some national circuit exposure.
Paradigm -- I've called myself tabula rasa for a long time. I prefer the debaters to explain why debate ought to function with their framework. However, I view nearly all theory arguments as paradigm debate. If you tell me on Topicality that theory shouldn't be considered because it takes away from the substantive parts of the debate, I'm going to remember that on your kritik or counterplan. Hence, the paradigm debate is ever present.
Kritiks -- I'll listen to any kritik, but my preference is for something that is at least related to the case or resolution. I also think that kritiks that have a consciousness raising element to them (changing the mind of the judge as an impact) have a higher burden because you then have to actually convince ME of it's validity, rather than arguing it would change the mind of potential others. I also think kritiks have become a crutch in debate. Once they are in the round, everything else seems to revolve around them, which makes good debate on the disad or case scenario less likely, although I have seen some excellent K rounds too. Consequently, I can be persuaded with good framework debate. You don't get a pass, but I'd love to see a round with solid scenario debate once in awhile.
Delivery -- I don't mind speed as long as it's clear. I really hate arrogance. You can win without being rude. I will tank speaker points for rudeness, I will not listen to hate speech or abusive language. You will lose. I have ignored an occasional slipped curse word, so long as it isn't hateful or becomes a habit. There's a huge difference in my mind between "Oh sh*t I forgot the perm" and using racist, sexist or homophobic language. By the way, that is NOT an invitation. It's still unprofessional.
Zach LeClair Paradigm
Jessica Matthews Paradigm
Will Mercer Paradigm
I debated 3 years at Maize High and am currently in my third year of assistant coaching also at Maize High.
I will listen to and evaluate kritikal args (including performance affs) but there are probably better judges out there if you're a K team. Obviously I will evaluate run-of-the-mill Ks like Cap and Foucault, but don't assume I know all about your cyber queer theory matrix argument. That being said, a team that is obviously knowledgeable about the kritik they are running and does a good job at framing the round and providing alt solvency can certainly win. However, I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts unless the framing debate is done well. Also, root cause debates and in round activism/education both need to have a voter to be evaluated in the debate (i.e. hey, I like framing a lot so don't get lazy with the easy stuff).
CPs and DAs
There absolutely is such a thing as a cheating counterplan. Competitive CPs only please. I like PICs bad arguments and I will often vote on them unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. DAs should be unique.
I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it.
Theory and T
I don't love competing interps and I will usually default to reasonability, but I will still evaluate T violations on reasonably topical affs. The only way to win the T debate on the neg is to either 1) run T against an obviously untopical aff and extend their voters or 2) run T against a likely topical aff and win reasonability bad and judge intervention bad. In terms of other theory arguments like framing, disclosure, etc. I need to have voters and I need those voters to be proven more important than evaluating the policy. If a teams wins on the theory level but does not provide adequate voting reasons why this is important or does not provide reason as to why theory evaluation should predicate policy, I will ignore the theory debate in favor of policy impacts. I really don't want you to do those things, I really enjoy good theory debate.
CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11 minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.
I am okay with speed in basically every instance except for when we get to theory args made on the flow that need explanation. If it's intricate and not in the speech doc slow it down a bit, it will help you if I can understand what's going on. That being said I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I will yell clear if I can't understand you. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).
In sum, I am a fairly middle of the road judge. I will not penalize you for going slow or for going fast and I won't penalize you for reading something I don't like. However, if you want someone super lay or super technical I'm probably not the judge for you.
Noah Schrick Paradigm
Experience: 5 years of high school debate at Tulsa-Union (OK), volunteer for UDL in Tulsa.
Policy/Traditional Affs –
No objection to these. I think these can be some of the most developed and strategic affs. That being said, shady or loose internal links is a pretty easy way for me to vote neg on presump.
All for it. 5 minutes of T in the 2NR is a very valid strat. If you do go for T, be sure to impact your standards out. In addition, don't just make blanket, generic impact claims such as, "this is bad for education." I think that education and fairness are impacts, but also internal links to external issues. Why is education important? Why should we care about fairness? Be sure to explain these.
Refer to speed section.
Also all for it. I’ll vote for any theory argument as long as you can fully explain why I should vote for it. Granted, I'll have a higher threshold for a crazy, off the wall arg, however I will still vote for it if it is explained well enough and impacted out.
I default to reject the arg unless there is substantial work done to explain why I should go otherwise, or there is a prejudice made by a team that is interfering with the debate.
Refer to speed section.
Will gladly vote on it. I do think RoBs are arbitrary. Both teams usually present them in a way to exclude the other. Majority of the time, no real clash occurs from these.
Refer to speed section.
K Affs/Non-Traditional –
Go for it. Would prefer it was germane to the topic, however. Not a necessity.
Disclaimer: I am not completely up-to-date with identity args and authors. That being said, I have no issues with these. Just make sure that rather than spitting author names at me, or identity jargon, explain it to me. I'm not lay and I'm not completely clueless on identity, but do explain the world of the aff and explain what the args mean. You can usually tell if I'm following based off my facial expressions.
All CPs are fine. With that in mind, if you read a rider, delay, or any other counterplan along those lines, be ready to defend theory since I'll have a higher threshold. CPs must also be competitive and have a net benefit. It will take a lot of work to convince me to vote for a CP just because it has good solvency with no additional benefits.
Aff: if you read theory on a CP, be sure to explain why the CP in question is bad, not just the type of CP (Example: I'll vote on Intl' CP Fiat Bad, but I will be much more likely to buy China/Russia/Japan Fiat Bad)
Specifics over generic. I will vote for generic DA’s/links, but it will be much easier to sway me to not vote for them if it is generic. No link args made by aff will be harder to overcome for generics.
Reading the same K shell every round won’t cut it. Whether you have cards specific for the aff case or not, you need to apply the K in terms of the aff. If you can read back 1AC/2AC cards or quotes and link it back to the K, it will go a long way for your link analysis. I really don’t like to vote on link of omissions, but I will if you can convince me why I should. Expect to put in time to convince me to vote on those; a couple sentences won’t get the job done. Don’t just repeat alt taglines at me, contextualize it in terms of the aff/round/world/whatever.
Refer to K aff section in regards to identity.
Don’t shotgun theory/t/fw args. If you read 5 blippy analytical arguments that you believe are all key reasons why I should vote for your args, but you read them all in rapid succession without stopping for a breath and you still expect me to catch and flow every single one, I won’t. If I don’t catch it, I won’t flow it. Clarity comes before speed. Taglines should be presented with a change in pitch or volume.
Debaters tend to spread paragraphs of analytical args and expect me to flow every word. If you do have these paragraphs, slow down a tad so that I can write it. You don't need to talk in a normal speaking voice, but at least slow down a little.
That being said, I am okay with speed, despite what you might interpret from that. Don’t be afraid to read quickly in front of me. If you think you could flow it, then I will probably be able to as well.
-Overflows > Underflows. But also, I just don't like underflows in general.
-Prep ends when the drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent. -I love Clever technical tricks/kicks/cross-applications. This will get a major boost in speaks from me. -CX is binding.
-Don’t clip cards. This should be obvious and applies to every round.
-If you’re kicking an advocacy such as a CP or an alt, be sure to say so.
-If there’s an email chain, go ahead and put me in it.
-Cross-Ex: Be aggressive, not rude. Yes, there’s a difference.
-Don’t mock or be distracting during someone else’s speech. I will dock speaker points if I deem it necessary
Speaker points –
30: Probably the best speaker at the tournament
29.5+: Getting a speaker award
29+: Has a few mistakes, but is still a fantastic speaker
28.5+: More mistakes, but still above average
28+: About average, could’ve handled some things differently or improved on speaking quality
27.5+: Many mistakes
27+: Many larger mistakes
26: Made huge errors that affected the outcome of my decision
Below a 26: Behavior, actions, or words that are harmful or hateful towards a people or a person directly. Also given for those that don’t fully participate