Union Forensic Society Invitational
2019 — Tulsa, OK/US
Abby Boon Paradigm
Daniel Caudle Paradigm
I have taught communication in some form for 9 years and have coached speech and debate for 5 years.
I have been judging debate for five years in Arkansas as well as Oklahoma, Louisiana, and NSDA National tournament in 2016. I judge an average of 1-3 tournaments a month with each consisting of multiple judged rounds.
I have the least experience with, and prefer not to judge, Policy debate. I am not comfortable with judging rounds involving "spreading" to the point that I can not understand the arguments being presented by the debaters.
When the debate is over I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
I do not disclose the win/loss at the end.
Wesley Cornett Paradigm
I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.
Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.
Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.
DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.
It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.
T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).
K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.
Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.
Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.
Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.
Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.
Robby Davis Paradigm
Cristina Dellinger Paradigm
Jennifer Denslow Paradigm
Mojave Gomez Paradigm
Kate Hughes Paradigm
Yash Kumar Paradigm
Antony Nation Paradigm
Name: Tony Nation
School â€“ Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS â€“ Assistant Coach
Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State â€“ Been coaching pretty much ever since.
Email: email@example.com â€“ add me to the chain
If youâ€™re looking for LD specific, itâ€™s at the bottom. Iâ€™d still suggest reading the whole thing.
Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.
I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but donâ€™t go crazy. If youâ€™re not clear or Iâ€™m behind Iâ€™ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you donâ€™t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and havenâ€™t told me thatâ€™s whatâ€™s going on. So, if youâ€™re giving an overview up top, tell me thatâ€™s what youâ€™re going to do.
As far as argument types and preferences, I really donâ€™t care what you run as long as youâ€™re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, Iâ€™m looking for offense. I canâ€™t remember one time Iâ€™ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. Iâ€™m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless thereâ€™s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you Iâ€™m not a â€œstock issuesâ€ judge. Iâ€™d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.
Notes about specific arguments:
All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.
I donâ€™t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.
Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case wonâ€™t solve at all. If you argue that there isnâ€™t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, thatâ€™s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. Weâ€™ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?
This doesnâ€™t mean I wonâ€™t vote for â€œgenericâ€ arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.
My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. Iâ€™m open to anything.
Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.
LD â€“ I donâ€™t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesnâ€™t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules Iâ€™m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.