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 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.
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.
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.
I completed my undergraduate degree in philosophy. There are very few philosophies you can reference that I will not be at least passingly familiar with, and I know the more common framework and kritikal philosophies in depth. This is a double-edged sword: you can run complex argumentation and make reference to more obscure philosophical issues, but if you misrepresent or misunderstand the arguments you are making I will know.
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
Coach with LD expirience. Mostly Traditional, but will accept Kritiks and some nontraditional arguments to the extent that they reasonably make sense and are topical. I can understand most speed up until spreading, and (if not in a panel of judges) will tell debaters if they are too fast.
Jamie Davenport Paradigm
Put me in email chains or feel free to email me some questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com
I'm mainly writing this for novice debaters to read so if you're varsity don't get mad about how some of these should be givens or if I don't get in depth - just ask me before the round - I try to cover most things, though.
This paradigm is mainly geared towards Lincoln-Douglas, I'll update it for policy as the need arises.
ABOUT ME [I'M SURE YOU CARE]
I'm currently coaching our novices on the Samford University CX squad. I'm also, starting in January, the LD coach at the Altamont School, so I'm more in the loop than I used to be. I teach at the Samford Debate Institute - typically found in the LD lab. In high school, I was the Lincoln-Douglas debate captain at Grovetown for two years and I debated for three. There, I competed on the national and state circuit alongside going to LD and Policy camps, so I was exposed to a pretty comprehensive bit of traditional and progressive debate when I was in HS.
Now, I do the things with Policy and I like it - I'm comfortable with both formats.
Tip: If you think you're losing the round but still want to have high speaks (or just for fun), I will boost speaks for bad (as in not good - unethical jokes will mean a drop in speaks at least) jokes and conspiracy theories. This doesn't mean you will win the round - just improve speaks.
I am also 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 and transitioning to a vegan diet. Don't bring me hot dogs.
I also do not care how you present yourself in terms of like attire or sitting or whatever.
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
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 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'll also time but it's a good habit to have.
- I will not count something if you don't say it. I'm tryna be as Tabula Rasa as possible, so please make the argument.
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.
Also because of my personal style and my exposure to CX [hah] 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 preferrably your oppenent as well, the doc as that is 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. Don't try to run these if you don't know what you're talking about - it'll hurt your Ethos. (This mainly applies to K-Affs or 1-off Negs lol). 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. As mentioned, I worked at the Samford Debate Institute and ENDI over the summer, so I was somewhat exposed to the topic there. However, I was isolated in my lil LD lab or the dorms, so I didn't get into all the DA and T and case lectures specific to this topic. You don't have a topic-specific knowledge base to take for granted here. Because I will not read all the topic lit before your debates, if you're a policy team - make good choices and elaborations. Also down to watch K vs K debates or K v FW debates.
MISC - MAYBE REFERENCE?
I'm updating this as debaters do things that frustrate/confuse me. Please do neither 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
I'll update this more as time progresses.
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 flow policy-like cases. 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. But if you are running theory, explain and support it well.
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:)