Samford Debate Institute

2018 — AL/US

Kevin Aubrey Paradigm

8 rounds

Add me to your email chain-

Former Policy debater @ Samford University

I lean more toward K debates as my personal preference. I am ok with judging straight up policy rounds. I enjoy listening to the different ways people interpret and deploy their arguments. I vote for the team with the better argument even if the other team's position is more interesting.

***Policy and LD***

Top level things

Roadmap-give me an order before you start speaking. I dock speaks for not following the road map given

Always have impact calculus (timeframe, magnitude, and probability).

I am not responsible to read your evidence after the debate. Your job is to contextualize your evidence and tell me why it should be considered. This is not Kevin's research hour

Speed-I will say clear one time, clarity over speed. If I have never judged you, start off slow so I can get used to you speaking.

Don't care if you sit or stand do what works for you.

I like smart asses, but do not cross the line watch the rudeness. No racism, sexism, etc.

DA/CP: I will vote on a DA or CP. Have specific internal links. Explains how the AFF gets to to the impact of the DA.

Kritiks: In order for you to get the ballot the K has to be well explained. Have specific links to the AFF. Give me the big picture, tell me the story of your K. The main thing is to explain everything throughly.

Theory: Give a line by line debate on theory, don't just read blocks. If you speed through theory, there is a chance I will miss it. To win a theory debate in front of me, means choosing solid arguments in the last speech and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments.

Topicality: Not as familiar with topicality.As the NEG you can win the argument if you spend time on explaining not just reading cards. As the AFF if you don't have a plan have reasons why you don't defend the plan and consequences.

Permutations: Permutation(s) that lack a discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean is unpersuasive to me, and will make it harder for you to to win the permutation, unless the Neg just concedes the perm. You should be able to explain your permutations in cross-x. There should be analysis of any permutation that make it to the 1AR.

Link/Link-Turn analysis: I expect debaters to be able to explain arguments not just restating the tagline (extend the entire link story not just a general idea). The team who does the better job explaining the warrants behind their permutation(s)/link(s) will do better than teams who read multiple arguments with no analysis.

***Public Forum***

I'm only voting on things extended into the Summary and FF.

Stop going for multiple voters. Give me one voter you have 2 minute speeches.

Kiarra Broadnax Paradigm

8 rounds

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns She/ Her/ Hers.

You can add me to the email chain and Please feel free to email or stop me to ask about your round. {}

To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section.


Hey Guys, Gals, and Nonbinary Pals. I’m a Second-year policy debater and current Junior at Samford University. Sadly, i did not know debate existed in High school and joined band instead. Even though, I did not participate in debate during high school that does not mean I will not understand your case. So challenge my frame of mind with new and exciting cases.

Things to do.

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

4. CP. I love a good counterplan.

5. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if its creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Please, do not do these:

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Name calling. Just don't be rude. I will give you terrible speaks, talk to your coach after the round, and not feel bad about it.

3. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon feeding you, your speech. I will cry.

4. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so. if you don't kick out of it, then I will evaluate it.

I'm easy to please. Don't be mean and make good argus.


Mary Blake Brock Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Skip Coulter Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jamie Davenport Paradigm

8 rounds

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me some questions:

I'm a senior at Samford and coach our novices and sometimes coach at high schools, it varies. Debated CX while at Samford and LD in High School.

College Policy:

Do what you want. Fairness is probably k2 education in T debates. Can be persuaded that education reigns supreme with the right impacts. You can skim the high school section to get an idea of how I otherwise perceive debate but I'm generally a go with the flow type of debater/person. I'll imagine fiat is real for policy debates but can be persuaded otherwise. If you're doing a style that is not plan-text big-impact AH, define by what standards I should evaluate the round and we'll be good.

I don't like theory debates. I need a lot more explanation of them to understand them so please be clear if this is your strat and make it easy to understand. Further, please don't pref me if you're high theory because I don't get it. If you're confident in your ability to explain it in an extremely clear way, go ahead, but I'm warning you that it's an uphill battle with me.

High School Debaters:

I am not opposed to things like snacks. No promises that it will help you at all in the debate, but I will take them. Note: I am a vegetarian. Don't bring me hot dogs.

I don't care if you sit or stand or how you present yourself -- do what makes you comfortable.

The challenge: Whoever first correctly uses the phrase "it be like that sometimes" in their speech gets a .1 boost in speaks

Follow @SUDebate on Insta if you're cool


I'm cool with all experience levels and I'm mainly out to help everyone improve the debate community.

Some pointers to get me on your side:

  • Don't be rude - which includes: racism, sexism, elitism, etc. Also don't just yell - make your words smarter not louder. I could very easily be convinced to vote someone down for excluding behavior in the debate sphere because I am personally invested in these types of arguments and think they have huge implication in debate. If the transgression is severe enough, I may make that decision without your opponent having to make the arg and I may report you to the tournament director.
  • Road maps and signposting are A+! If you don't know what that is, ask me before the round.
  • Don't be overly aggressive in Cross-ex - especially if you're just trying to scare your opponent.
  • If I make a weird face I'm either confused by what you mean or I think it's a bad idea - make the call to elaborate or abandon the argument.
  • If I start nodding I'm probably grooving on what you have to say - pursue that argument.
  • Don't assume I'm stupid - If you want to make an argument, make it. If you explain it well enough then you can overcome any stupidity I may or may not have. (And chances are I've already noticed it).
  • Please time your speeches.


I dabbled in policy-type LD while I was in high school - I was closer to progressive debate than not. As mentioned, I am also now debating Policy so I'm pretty open to most "progressive" arguments: Kritiks are bae, counterplans are cool, disads are fine, plantext affs are weird/maybe don't belong in LD, I think Topicality doesn't necessarily have to be run as a shell, don't try to tell me the neg can perm because they can't, ask about anything else.

I've seen some... interesting.. arguments that hinged on like multiple-world theory, trivialism, etc. I think that these are intriguing and I think I have an alright grasp on how they hash out SO if you want to run it (and actually can run it), I'm cool with these types of arguments. You're going to have to win abuse args but you can always try. Typically you can run whatever you want in front of me - I like to learn new things.

I can handle speed - I discourage all out spreading because LD is very analytical and I would like to hear what explanations you have. If you choose to spread please email at least me, but preferably your opponent as well, the doc as that is a regular practice for Policy debate, which you're clearly trying to embrace.

I will probably automatically vote you down for card clipping. I've done it before and am fine to do it again. Don't do it. I'll also report you to the tournament director, who will likely tell your coach. Thanks!

I don't flow cross-ex. If it's important, bring it up in a speech


My LD prefs should generally apply here. I'm cool with Kritiks (on either side), but if it's a more niche arg I'm probably not up-to-date on the literature. I think condo bad is uber valid when you get to the 4+ area (I could be convinced of 3, depending on the round).

For the HS topic: I am not super up to date on this topic and don't plan to be. You don't have a topic-specific knowledge base to take for granted here.

I'm updating this as debaters do things that frustrate/confuse me. Please do none of these things.

- I don't particularly love T/theory debates, so if this is your strat make sure you're explaining things really well. Like way more than you think you should.

-- On theory, I default to a fairness k2 education paradigm unless you tell me to do something else and give reasons why. Also try winning the fairness interp.

- I seriously don't get RVIs and don't like them. I think they're especially silly in a constructive. A debater asked me about an RVI in semi's at a tournament, I said I just literally didn't get it and the other judges concurred. Be the change. Don't do an RVI.

- Please don't read an identity k in front of me (while not being a member of that identity) and ALSO read a DA/link that your opponent is speaking for others by advocating X plan. This happens WAY too often and it's pretty ridiculous. Find a K and/or authors that don't make this yikes if you really want to go for it. Similarly, if your opponent does these shenanigans, I'm really open to the arg that they link and I should probably vote them down

Jeff Roberts Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dovie Stem Paradigm

8 rounds

Please put me on the email chain. I know you didn't read my philosophy if you ask if I want to be on the chain.

I am a relatively middle of the road judge. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if your best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will vote for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I can handle speed, but you MUST be clear and I must be able to hear you- do not sacrifice your clarity for speed. If I can’t hear the argument, I will not vote for it.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. Please slow down when going through K stuff, see the aforementioned commentary on clarity. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out-there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs on real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time.

I like smart, organized debates. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.At the end of the day, you should write my ballot for me. I really enjoy judging debate, please don’t make it work.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be the worst. Being sassy is acceptable, but do not cross a line that makes it personal.