BAUDL Season Opener
2018 — Emery High School, CA/US
David Escobar Paradigm
paradigms should constantly evolve - will update as i develop further views of debate and the world.
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
second year policy debater, currently @ uc berkeley, debated 4 years in hs.
For those who are scrambling to do prefs last minute, below is a tldr (we've all been there)
If you have time to do prefs, please read this tldr and the "long version" -
do you! I will evaluate any style willingly, i'm coming in familiar with most styles of debate and experience coaching a few events (namely policy, LD, and parli). Feel free to spread, i will be able to handle top speed, but keep in mind that speaker points are going to be affected by lack of enunciation or clarity. Many of my 2nr's are spent going for the K (that doesn't mean yours should be) but I was pretty flex early on, so debate as you would on any other day, as long as it is respectful to everyone in the room. DON’T let my preferred style of debate affect the arguments you read in front of me. I am of more use to you if the rfd is going to be centered around the k and I only include my argument preference to be clear about that. Debate should be a space to develop your agency or recognize and tackle the lack thereof, that’s my only preconception about the forwarding of any argument in a round.
Tech > Truth but if your "flow winning" arguments are rooted in bullshit then you'll have a hard time winning my ballot (i.e. "they conceded the sky is green", wouldn't inform my ballot). Tell me why a conceded argument informs and structures my decision on that specific flow. In most instances, win the flow, win the round - unless you do something that makes the debate space very explicitly worse.
i may be facially expressive - so feel free to use that to your advantage.
Case Debate: I feel that neg case specifics are a lost craft in debate (from what i've seen in the time that I've been involved). I love a good case debate, if you have a very specific and offense based neg case then i will enjoy the round significantly more, if a significant portion of your 1 and 2nr's are case turns, i'm all ears. Less of a fan of case generics but I understand their utility and necessity.
For the aff, I find that a lot of high school debaters don’t extend their impacts, please do.
I am willing to vote neg on presumption, if the aff doesn't do anything, then convince me of that.
Style: I was a K debater who mainly stayed in the realm of "identity" based arguments and dabbled in post modernism - while there is a good chance that i have dived into a lot of the lit you're going to read in front of me, overviews and explanations should assume a more basic explanation (i will understand the complexities of your buzz words, but we all know that is not the most effective way to debate). The only reason I mention my preferred style of debate is so you know who you're preffing, that doesn't mean it should affect the arguments you read in front of me.
If you're more traditional policy, that's great too, I am not entirely politically incompetent (I hope) and will understand the scenarios in your ptx disads, etc.
Debate as you will. Unorthodox, traditional, while doing a handstand, it doesn't matter to me, i'll evaluate it. I won't lie and say im "tabula rasa", but my internal biases almost definitely won't be the reason you lose a round.
Please contextualize args, I beg of you, speaks will probably be affected by generic blocks but that doesn't mean that they cant win you the debate.
Reliance on cards is a common practice that i've noticed. My biggest suggestion is if you're caught between taking the time to articulate an argument well and reading a blippy card, don't read the card.
Evidence is not the end all be all of debate (or "true" claims) and some arguments do not require evidence to be valid.
I like creative procedurals - generic procedurals may be less well received by me but I understand their utility and necessity, you're probably going to have to win that the other team truly made the debate unfair and there's a high threshold for that in most situations for me. The reason why there is a high threshold stems from the lack of impact work I see on t/fw flows. I get it, your standards affect the way the debate plays out, but why does that matter? Impact it. If the impact work is weak, then i lean aff against t/fw.
A TVA never hurt anybody and is the best way to win my ballot on the T flow, but there is usually a high burden to "prove" that the tva solves the aff.
I will happily vote on condo, agent cp's bad, and arguments of the sort if argued convincingly. You can do this by isolating ways the other team made the debate unnecessarily difficult. Ex) reading condo and telling me "they say *this* on one off case and *this* on another, these two arguments vehemently disagree with each other". I am particularly more sympathetic than your common judge if work like this is done.
You are best off reading the most inclusive interp on t/fw that still excludes the instance of the 1ac. This makes your job a lot easier and garners you the most offense/minimizes the offense read against your interp.
I like non-traditional theory arguments.
K debate (on the aff and neg):
This is what I spend most of my time involved with. That doesn't mean read a K in front of me and you'll be rewarded, I hold a high threshold for K debate so butchering args may hurt speaks. Vice versa, a good k debate will boost speaks. These are probably my favorite debates to judge and where my RFD can serve you the best - I prefer very case centered link work and an application of the meta level descriptions in the world of the aff, contextualization is premium. Thinking of links as case disads or turns may help you frame the links in a way that is compelling to me.
Let me know when the overview is going to be long, I usually put them on another flow.
I will gladly vote for a k aff, if articulated well. I like k affs that are in the direction of the topic, but feel free to not relate to the topic at all (just know that this may come with additional challenges).
If you are a critique of the resolution - be ready to explain why discussions of the topic are bad and why the education you forward is valuable. Please give me a reason that you reject political intervention, the burden for this isn't too high from me, i know ptx and political hope aren't accessible to everyone.
You don't need to claim to solve the structure with your k aff, in fact, I am more compelled by affs that resolve individualized impacts or mend unique instances in debate.
Non Trad or "performance" Debate:
I am receptive of these arguments.
If you read a poem, rap, dance, perform a ritual, use a prop, play music or sing, etc. please employ this as offense! Don't do it to flower your speaks, extend these arguments in a way that informs my ballot and is direct offense to the presentations or responses you receive. Tell me why your performance is a representation of your affirmation or alt, do the solvency work.
I reward creativity, only if the above is done. Innovative arguments are always going to be my favorite to judge.
DA's + CP's:
I find most impact scenarios with ptx and assorted da's hard to buy, largely because internal link work is lacking, and if we're being honest with ourselves they're not probable. This doesn't mean i'm not going to vote for them if they're won.
Don't kid yourself and try and convincingly yell about how the probability is 100%, that doesn't do you any favors. Do decent internal link extension and employ case specific links (that are in the context of the aff's policy) and you'll be in good shape.
If the link is not in the context of the aff, at least do a decent job articulating how the policy warranted in the link evidence is similar to the aff.
Feel free to read any type of CP, I don't have any dislike towards a specific type, but I can be compelled by aff theory vs counterplans that are almost entirely the aff. This also includes theory vs PIC's, so be aware.
Make your cp's competitive and make sure they resolve at least a snippet of the aff's impacts, this should be a given.
I like creative and non-traditional cp's as a format.
Framing + Organization:
This is a highly important component of debates that I adjudicate, if you are winning the framing level of the debate then your impacts are most likely going to be prioritized. I usually like the framing to come at the top of a speech (feel free to put it elsewhere so long as you maintain an able-to-be-followed organization). This applies to most framing - from util to "ethics" or subject form based framing.
Organized and coherent structure to speeches will mean more generous speaks, this means sticking to your road map and suggesting where to put something that isn't so obvious on the flow.
If your overview is going to be longer than 2 minutes (it probably shouldn't be, but it happens) then let me know.
If you have any other questions that aren't covered here, or questions about the paradigm, feel free to ask in person.
solid humor may be rewarded with an additional .1 or .2 speaks, it keeps the debate interesting, don't make a joke out of something that is objectively not to be joked about. don't speak over your partner or “puppeteer”/“parrot” them, both speaks may be docked.
30 - you literally did nothing wrong, best speeches i've ever heard and you actively engaged with your partner.
29.5-29.9 - you deserve to be top speaker and have very few mistakes, or you did something really cool and original that i've never seen before and is good for debate (whatever that may mean).
29 -29.4 - you should be a top 10 speaker at the least, there was something important that needed to be worked on but other than that you were entirely solid.
28.5-28.9 - you will probably make it to elims at the tournament and/or you were putting in an effort and that effort is truly paying off, good speaker.
28-28.4 - there are some significant improvements to be made, but you were a decent speaker and may be a lower seed in elims.
27.5 - 27.9 - there were clarity/comprehension issues, argument matching may not have been the strongest, stride for improvement.
27 - 27.4 - ehhhh, speeches were disorganized and can use major improvement.
26.9 and below - you did something that vastly made the debate space worse.
Max Katz Paradigm
Demetrius Lambrinos Paradigm
Christopher Scheer Paradigm
My experience: Teacher/coach in a UDL for 8 years. Never debated. I guess you could say I am an experienced lay judge who is OK with spreading, K, framework and other stuff lay judges don't usually want to hear about. Please slow down for contentions/signposts/tags/cites.
I copied Toni Nielson because I agree with everything she wrote in her paradigm:
"Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful –
1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 10-15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.
Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.
Now you are asking,
Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. I lean more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate is not nearly as sophisticated as my history of K debate.
Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative in most instances. Framework - lean in the direction of the K.
Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of truth. BUT gigantic caveat, debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the truth is not a declaration to abandon refutation. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones of substance to the debate.
Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.
diego garcia Paradigm
lucy huang Paradigm
I debated LD for 4 years at Monta Vista High School, and now I debate on the parli team at Berkeley. If you have questions message me on Facebook.
[most of this is adapted from my former teammate Oliver Zhao's wiki]
You probably don’t want to go at full speed if you can't enunciate.
Most of what’s below are just my own opinions on different types of arguments so if you’re pressed for time, I’ll give a tl;dr on the most important stuff
- Plan, cp, perm texts and T/theory interps should be read SLOWLY and written down
- Affs should (generally) defend the topic
- Please weigh
For plans: I find the weirdly specific plans in the topic lit way more interesting than whole res, but I’ll also listen to T.
For counterplans: Condo is cool so long as the advocacies aren’t contradictory. I read some PICs when I was in high school so I’d be willing to vote for those too.
Remember to read your plan texts/cp texts/perm texts SLOWLY.
I read mostly Ks in high school, but don’t assume that means that I know what your authors are saying. Error on the side of caution.
You also should explain exactly what the world of the alternative looks like, and why this is a fair advocacy.
Aff Ks, performance, etc. are all fine as long as you give me a way to evaluate the round that isn't just vote Aff. I prefer that your affs be topical in some way or another. It’s perfectly ok (even encouraged) to have an unconventional reading of the topic provided you’re ready to debate T, but probably less ok to completely discard the topic in favor of your own position.
Theory debates tend to be fast and blippy so a well-organized speech doc with your analytics can do wonders for my flowing.
I’ll default on competing interps, drop the debater, fairness over education, and no RVIs provided neither of the debaters make any claims toward either direction.
Things I like
- Even if you don't buy this argument, etc