Capitol Debate OSU Camp Tournament

2018 — Columbus, OH/US

Allen Abbott Paradigm

TOC people: If you've had me as a judge before, I haven't changed much. I've probably just gotten better at judging (as with any other first year out who initially sucks at judging). Check out #6 (speaker points) for an update, though.

1. Tech > Truth

2. Do more argument comparison. This also means doing impact framing/meta weighing! Please don't forget about reading/extending internal links and terminal impacts.

3. I default to:

a) frontlining in second rebuttal

b) first summary interacts with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined (so, if the second rebuttal frontlines, the first summary should interact with that frontlining if they plan to go for anything from rebuttal in final focus); if second rebuttal doesn't frontline, you can extend defense from rebuttal to final focus

c) no new arguments in final focus (unless first final focus is answering something new in second summary)

d) only calling for cards if their is a dispute over them or a debater tells me to call for them

e) presuming first speaking team

But, debaters are always free to read theoretical justifications in the round to tell me otherwise!

4. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

5. I love fast debate, but have Auditory Processing Disorder, which means I sometimes don't immediately comprehend everything I hear during speech. Thus, I may ask for clarifying questions after your speech about a tag or warrant I didn't catch in your speech (I'm not intervening, I'm trying to do the best that I can to give you a fair round). Please give me (and your opponents) a speech doc if you go above 300 words per minute.

6. I now start at a 29 for speaks since enough people started complaining about the "30s for everyone" paradigm I previously had. Points go up for good strategic decision on the flow. Points go down for miscut cards, ghost/no extensions, and bad behavior in round.

I will give you +0.1 speaker points for every TableTote height setting used in round above the first. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out.

Automatic 30 for a Coke Zero (not a Coke Zero Sugar) or freshly made risotto (recipe below). Jk bribery bad xDxxxDDDD but I still like risotto and Coke Zero Sugar and I'll drink during the round any quantity of Coke Zero Sugar that you bring to me.

Allen's Signature Parmesan Risotto

Ingredients

-3.5 cups chicken broth

-3 cups water

-4 tablespoons unsalted butter

-1 medium onion, finely diced or minced

-2 cups dry white wine

-2 cups Arborio rice

-1.5 cup Parmesan cheese

-Ground black pepper (white pepper, if you're feeling spunky)

-Penzy's Italian Herb Mix (which consists of oregano, basil, parsley, marjoram, thyme, and rosemary)

Instructions

1. Bring the broth and water to a simmer in a large saucepan (I use a Dutch Oven) over medium-high heat. Reduce the heat to the lowest possible setting after the broth reaches its boiling point. Keep on the backburner.

2. Melt the butter in a 4-quart saucepan over medium heat. Once the foaming subsides (DON'T BURN THE BUTTER), add the onion and 1/2 teaspoon of salt and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onion is very soft and translucent, about 9 minutes. Add the rice and cook, stirring frequently, until the edges of the grains are transparent, about 4 minutes. Add 1 cup of the wine and cook, stirring frequently, until the wine is completely absorbed by the rice, about 2 minutes. Add 3 cups of the warm broth and, stirring frequently, simmer until the liquid is absorbed and the bottom of the pan is dry.

3. Add more of the broth, 1/2 cup at a time, as needed, to keep the pan bottom from becoming dry; cook, stirring frequently (every 1 or 2 minutes), until the grains of the rice are cooked through but still somewhat firm in the center, 10 to 12 minutes. Stir in 1 cup of the cheese and the remaining wine. Season with the herbs, salt, pepper, and additional cheese, to taste.

Honestly, debaters focus too much on persuasion through auditory perception. I'd like for there to be a debate event where we use olfaction and gustation as tools for persuasion. However, PF isn't that event, and you probably weren't going to get the kitchen/utensils/wine necessary to make the risotto during a tournament. So, we're back to just debating.

Savon Ayodeji Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Matthew Doggett Paradigm

Not Submitted

Olivia Sailors Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Schulster Paradigm

*Last updated 9/8/18*

Background:

School: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive history:

Public Forum for 4 years in HS - primarily as Boca GS

JV Policy Debate for 2 years in College, starting in Varsity this year - Florida State HS

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you, .5 + speaks if everyone sends out speech docs.

General:

1)Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. That includes turns on their case. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus. This checks back time skew.

3) Weigh and weigh early. If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) If you want to extend a card, you need to extend at the very least the links and warrants of the argument.

5) The final focus writes my ballot. Anything you want me to vote on needs to be in this last speech.

Framework:

Key to winning framework: warrants. Also, if you're making a FW argument that functions as a prerequisite to contention level debate, you need to clearly explain that. If you don't make responses to a framework argument and your opponents warrant it well and extend it in summary and final focus, you will likely lose.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for at least a minute in the summary and another minute in the FF.

Kritiks:

I am primarily a K debater in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, given that you can't run an alternative in Public Forum, you can't really run a K because you can't run an alt. You can still run a kritikal disad or case arg and I'll still vote for it, just make sure to contextualize the K and explain it clearly. Just because I read K's doesn't mean I'm familiar with all the different types of K lit out there. The clearer the better.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. However, I also have found myself voting for the neg on presumption in the event that the aff isn't winning any risk of any of their offense. If you want me to vote on presumption you have to say so.

Weighing:

I'm just going to be real here, so many good teams that probably deserve speaks higher than a 28 just forget to weigh and I penalize them for this. I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated. I find myself voting more often on probability > magnitude but will vote for anything if you debate it better than your opponents.

Evidence Standard:

Oh how I wish PF norms included using speech docs (would make evidence debates a non-issue). I will only call for cards if they are constantly contested in the round, if I think it is necessary to aid me in my decision, or if you tell me to. I will disregard any evidence that is misconstrued/fabricated. I won't touch your speaks at all and I'll only drop the argument if it was contingent on you winning that piece of evidence (but then again, most of the time I won't waste time calling for a card that isn't integral to you in the debate).

Speaker Point Scale:

<26 means you were offensive/rude

26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped case

27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.

28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.

29-29.5 means you extend all or almost all of the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.

29.6-30 are rarely given out. You made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy.

Speaking Tips:

1) I don't look up that much in the debate because I flow on my computer. I assign speaker points based on how technical you are, meaning even if you speak really pretty you can't get super high speaks unless your actual debating skills are refined.

2) Don't be rude to each other. If I look uncomfortable in my seat it means I'm uncomfortable.

3) Don't be offensive.

4) Be funny. Easy way to get high speaks.

5) Be smart. Being an effective speaker not only rests on how you sound, but what you say. If you make me "wow" at any moment in the debate, I will most likely give you a 29 or 30.

Bonus Speaks:

In order to promote clash, education, and increase evidence standards, I will award each speaker an additional .5 speaker points from what I would normally have given you that round if you and your opponents agree to send out speech docs for case and rebuttal to me and each other. No penalty for not doing this, but the benefits are extra speaker points and potentially a better RFD. The extra speaks will ONLY apply if you AND your opponents send out the docs. Please make this decision before going into the round and have speech docs ready to send on an email chain.

Other:

1) I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

2) Keep your own time.

3) I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

4) I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

5) I flow on excel. Do what you want with that info.

P.S. if you see me nodding my head up and down don't read too much into it, I'm just bobbing up and down because I don't like sitting in a chair for 2 hours straight

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions or you and your opponents agree to send speech docs email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Club Debate Paradigm:

Club Affiliation: Capitol Debate (since 2017)

General Info:

1)Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) Do your job. If you are giving the attack speech, you cannot go back to your own case. Use all the time putting responses on your opponents case. If you are giving the defense speech, you are only allowed to respond to your opponents attack speech.

4) Extend arguments, not just card names. If you want me to comfortably vote for an argument you need to extend the argument in its entirety, not just the claim.

5) The summarize and weigh speech writes my ballot. Anything you want me to vote on needs to be in this last speech. Please please please weigh. It's literally in the name of the speech. Easy formula to follow: why you are winning your argument, extend the argument properly, and then explain why it is more important than your opponents argument.

Framework:

Key to winning framework: warrants. Also, if you're making a FW argument that functions as a prerequisite to contention level debate, you need to clearly explain that. If you don't make responses to a framework argument and your opponents warrant it well and extend it in summary and final focus, you will likely lose.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. However, I also have found myself voting for the neg on presumption in the event that the aff isn't winning any risk of any of their offense. If you want me to vote on presumption you have to say so.

Weighing:

I'm just going to be real here, so many good teams that probably deserve speaks higher than a 70 just forget to weigh and I penalize them for this. I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated. I find myself voting more often on probability > magnitude but will vote for anything if you debate it better than your opponents.

Speaker Point Scale:

Disclaimer: Your speaking position results in different requirements to score high speaks. Pay attention to what you need to be doing for your respective speech in order to score high.

<50 means you were offensive/rude

50-59 means you need improvement: you don't extend arguments well/properly, have very little if any offense, don't use the entirety of your speech time, undercover the debate (top or bottom heavy included), don't weigh, make poor strategic decisions, lack sufficient clash, lack comparative analysis, etc. Basically this category means you were giving speeches but not really engaging in a debate.

60-69 means you still can improve in some of the categories mentioned previously, but can at least extend the warrant and impact of an argument, have ample coverage, follow the conventions of each speech, and weigh your arguments.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 70 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO COMPARATIVELY WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Note: First Speakers do not need to comparatively weigh to get higher than a 70, although it is encouraged.

70-79 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and comparatively weigh your arguments.

80-89 means you should be breaking at club tournaments. You do all of the right comparative weighing, make strategic in-round decisions, crystallize well in the back half of the round, and have near perfect line-by-line coverage in the attack/defense speech.

90-100 are rarely given out. You do everything in the previous category, but additionally you had a strong attack with both defense and offense, you effectively compare warrants and/or evidence, and you provided a coherent comparative analysis that made my decision easy. First speakers in this category have an incredibly well-organized and structured opening speech and perfect coverage in the defense speech with early comparative weighing.

Speaking Tips:

1) I don't look up that much in the debate because I flow on my computer. I assign speaker points based on how technical you are, meaning even if you speak really pretty you can't get super high speaks unless your actual debating skills are refined. Speaking pretty is still really valuable though, and you will score higher for speaking well. For example, if you speak really pretty but don't comparatively weigh, you cannot get higher than a 70 but will score highly in the 60-69 category.

2) Don't be rude to each other. If I look uncomfortable in my seat it means I'm uncomfortable.

3) Don't be offensive.

4) Be funny. Easy way to get high speaks.

Other:

1) Keep your own time.

2) I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

3) I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

4) I flow on excel. Do what you want with that info.

P.S. if you see me nodding my head up and down don't read too much into it, I'm just bobbing up and down because I don't like sitting in a chair for 2 hours straight

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions or you and your opponents agree to send speech docs email me at jschulster@capitoldebate.com or ask me before the round.