Warrior War of Words
2018 — Grovetown, GA, GA/US
Lucas Bailey Paradigm
I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.
Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". I default to a "better debater" standard. Be sure to provide evidence for how the ballot will create change.
Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.
Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.
Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.
Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.
Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.
Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.
Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.
Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true.
Since I've gotten some questions about this..
I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well
30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.
Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.
If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.
Public Forum Paradigm
I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.
I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".
Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.
No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.
No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.
The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.
Colin Berry Paradigm
Jamie Davenport Paradigm
Put me in email chains or feel free to email me some questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com
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.
for eTOC: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust.
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 don't care if you sit or stand or how you present yourself -- do what makes you comfortable.
Follow @SUDebate on Insta if you're cool
GENERAL LINCOLN DOUGLAS
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 exclusionary behavior in the debate space. 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 your coach/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.
- 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. This has literally happened where a debate opted to not make an argument because they didn't think I would understand and I'm pretty sure they lost the debate.r
- 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 lit, counterplans are cool, disads are fine, I've adjusted to plantext affs and like them now, I think Topicality doesn't have to be run as a separate page but should be a shell with interp, standards and voters. Ask about anything else.
I've seen some... interesting.. arguments that hinged on like multiple-world theory, trivialism, etc. I'm cool with you running 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 out the doc to both me and your opponent 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.
ACTUAL POLICY DEBATE
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.
MISC - MAYBE REFERENCE?
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 (read: the 1AC). 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. At a different semi's, a debater lost because they went for a trivial RVI and the entire panel voted it down. 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
Maxwell Elliott Paradigm
I am an ELA teacher and an assistant coach participating in Speech & Debate for the first time. As such, I am still learning many of the more technical aspects of speech & debate; when I am judging, you would do well to consider me more as a lay-person than an expert. That being said, my background in ELA makes me very familiar with argumentative structure and I tend to view arguments through that lens. I am less interested in your technical prowess and more interested in straightforward, philosophically-minded argumentation.
Elizabeth Hahn Paradigm
Jessica Pryor Paradigm
Janey Simmons Paradigm
I'd say an unique route lead me to high school speech/debate. Started off as an attorney in Florida, but numerous circumstances led me to teaching in 2011. I'm now Carrollton High School's Assistant Speech/Debate Coach. I've watched a lot of rounds (LD and PF), but I'm still learning.
It's important. Don't abandon it. That being said, in LD I don't need a million sources on values/criterion/observations that say the same thing. Also, not every word in the resolution needs to be defined unless this will be critical to assumptions made in the round (kritik). I prefer substantive debate. Also, I'm used to GA LD cases being set up with value, criterion, contentions, but I can still other case formats. For PF, if you you want me to evaluate framework, make sure you extend it throughout the round and explain why it is more important than the oppositions.
Preparing blocks with quality evidence is crucial to a good debate. Also, don't forget warrant and impact for every claim. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.
Sometimes debaters ask me how I feel about this. I'm open to all forms of good debate. Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.
EVALUATING THE ROUND
Please give voters/impacts in summary (LD) and final focus (PF) to narrow round down to crucial areas. If argument was dropped, tell me how/why important to the round instead of "well they dropped it, so flow the argument to me." Also, please signpost/road map. I like a nice organized flow and don't like getting bounced around. Finally, I do evaluate statements made in cross.
Speed/spreading is fine unless lack of breath support/stammering over words is distracting. Speed is fine, but clarity is important. As far as sitting/standing, I would prefer you stand, except debaters in PF grand cross.
Please don't be rude to your opponent. You all are very smart, but smart doesn't entitle you to talk to people way you feel like. You can be polite and firm/assertive at the same time. Also, I will stop a debater for making any discriminatory remarks.
I usually disclose, but sometimes I like to sit alone with my flow after the round and write out a thorough reason for decision and provide clear written feedback rather than oral. I promise to be thorough and apologize if this is not your preference.
I'll close with guaranteeing that I will always give you my absolute focus and best efforts to flow well so my decision will be based on my flow and not any personal bias. I look forward to being your judge today:)