Capitol Hun School Summer Debate Tournament
2018 — NJ/US
Olivia Adams Paradigm
Roberto Adanto Paradigm
Margarita Artoglou Paradigm
Dan Austin Paradigm
Griffin Badalamente Paradigm
In summarize and weigh, tell me 3 things:
1. What's important
2. Why it's important
3. Why you are winning it.
If you do that, I will most likely vote for you.
Grace Findley Paradigm
For Capitol Club Debate:
I did PF for 3 years at Boca High, now I'm a sophomore at FSU
If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask before the round :))
I would consider myself a flow judge who really appreciates a good narrative.
- I see evidence as a way of proving the validity of your arguments/claims, not claims/arguments themselves. Don't run a chain of evidence and names and expect me to vote for it.
- Logical arguments are valid in my view, however don't make crazy assertions and expect me to agree with them.
- Far stretched arguments links to plausibility and topicality must be clear and evident. If you plan on running something unique make sure to explain it well. I enjoy hearing unique and different arguments/perspectives, however make sure to explain the link well.
- When making extensions don't tell me to extend John Smith 15, summarize what I'm extending and why should I care that your opponent dropped/conceded to this argument. Extensions are meaningless unless you tell me why I care. I will not put in the impacts for you.
- Don't make the argument "my study is better" or "this argument is not plausible" or "drop this." Give me a reason why.
- Second Rebuttal needs to frontline turns and respond to any FW or observation made by the first speaking team. So basically respond to any offense.
Heres what not to do:
-Do not be mean in CX - not allowing your opponents to speak or answer the question, yelling, etc.
-in Summary and FF please do not go for everything. You're not going to win every argument and if you pick one or two arguments to go for it'll leave time for better analysis and weighing.
- If you don't weigh you won't win. Weighing isn't just the use of words, such as scope and magnitude but an actual comparison of argumentation backed up with clear warrants. The earlier the weighing is introduced, the better.
(100-90): I have a high threshold for this range of speaks. In order to get a 90-100 you need to:
1) Meet the time on all speeches
2) Introduce clear, comparative weighing (preferably as soon as rebuttal) - see under misc. ^
2a) In order to get access to this weighing, a warrant needs to be provided
3) Signpost throughout your speeches (even give me a roadmap at the beginning)
4) Clearly articulate your points in a timely manner (aka good word economy)
5) Do line by line coverage
1) Meet the time on all speeches
3) Good word economy
3) Introduce comparative weighing at least in the summarize and weigh speech
1) Almost fill the time requirement
2) You make strategic decisions of what to extend
4) Hopefully do comparative weighing (at least introduce the rhetoric of some weighing mechanism)
1) Need to make some extensions within your speeches
1) This means you didn't extend arguments - You have no offense (it was dropped)
2) You don't fill even half of the speech time
3) You make poor strategic decisions
4) You really just did not engage in the debate and provided little to no clash