Airline Annual Clash of the Vikings

2019 — Bossier City, LA/US

Cameron Abrams Paradigm

I am currently a senior at Airline and have been debating for four years.

Contact Information:

cabrams461@gmail.com

Fundamentals:

I am not particularly opposed to any arguments so long as you aren't offensive / problematic. I will flow any argument so long as you speak clearly enough for me to understand you. I prefer being included in email chains / being flashed evidence, just to ensure that I do not miss any of your arguments.

K Affs / Kritiks:

K debates are interesting to watch and I feel that the literature base behind critiques is something that everyone (including myself) should be more well versed in. That being said, it is imperative that you have enough of a grasp on the literature underpinning your K to effectively convey your argument. If it is obvious that you don't understand your own arguments, drastically misinterpret the intent of the K, then I can almost guarantee that your opponent will win the round.

Counterplans / CP Theory:

I have no preferences for or against counterplans. That being said, there needs to be a net benefit to the counterplan, in and of itself, I typically won't vote for a counterplan alone as it isn't an advocacy. Debates that devolve into counterplan theory are interesting, just make sure everything is impacted out properly.

CX:

Open CX is perfectly fine, whatever you do just please don't drown out your partner during CX, it's rude and it makes you seem super pretentious, it's never that serious. Respect in CX is a common courtesy, that being said it is perfectly fine to be assertive, just don't be super aggressive or cocky, it doesn't help you at all.

Framework:

Two important things about framework that I have learned from trial and error 1.) Make sure that all of your framework arguments are contextualized to the debate that you are currently having. 2.) Although framework is extremely important, don't think that spending all of your time on framework will warrant a W. Granted, a team dropping FW or mishandling it will drastically decrease their chances of winning, don't under-cover their arguments to focus on your framework. Say what needs to be said and move on.

Disads:

Me being able to follow the disad is key, make sure the explanation is done well and try to make sure that if you are reading multiple disads that they are all distinct and ensure that I can reasonably follow you. (just be organized)

Speaker Points:

A 27 or a 28 is what I guess I would reasonably expect to give the average debater, it's nothing terrible but also nothing amazing. Anything above a 28 probably did something I particularly liked, and anything below a 27 warrants some form of improvement (which will likely be written on the ballot). That being said anything that is offensive will warrant low speaks, again just be respectful, debate is literally not important enough in the grand scheme of things to just go around offending people.

Misc.

Basically just make sure that you are organized, I'm willing to vote on anything so long as the explanation is done well. Keep in mind that every judge is human, nobody is going to catch every single word, make sure that you are willing to adapt to your situation.

Delton Abrams Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bob Alexander Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Megan Arbuckle Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ethan Arbuckle Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Daniel Baskin Paradigm

Not Submitted

James Bohn Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Shannon Bothel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kisha Brown Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marissa Brown Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maxteshia Brown Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robert Brown Paradigm

Not Submitted

Martin Dale Bryant Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachel Bryant Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kristy Coleman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sean Cooksey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dylan Davis Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Barry Dunford Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lee Dunford Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jon Edie Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aj Edwards Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Trey Gibson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Thomas Greathouse Paradigm

8 rounds

Debate History -

Benton HS Debate 2005-2010

Personal Paradigms -

Here's the short version - I believe that the debate is about finding the best policy option in the round. That said, I will listen to the debate you want to have. If you don't tell me what I should vote on and do some analysis as to why you're leaving me to evaluate the round according to my personal preferences.

Case - The affirmative should have a plan. On the negative side I like to see case arguments as part of your overall strategy, however, they would most likely be too weak on their own to convince me to vote for you.

Theory - I enjoy theory arguments and will vote on them provided that there are actual instances of abuse in the round.

Kritiks - I was not a strong K debater in school. I understand their use strategically, however, I always preferred to debate straight policy with the exception of some specific scenarios. Having said that, I will listen to and vote on Ks providing they are well-structured and with impacts clearly defined. If you can clearly evaluate the impacts of your K vs the plan's advantage and also tell me what signing the ballot for you actually does I will be much more inclined to vote on it. Having a clear framework will help.

Cx - I'm good with open CX but the people that are supposed to be doing the CX get first crack. Don't talk over your partner; you'll lose points doing that.

A note about speed and clarity - I am fine with speed. You do need to be clear though. If I can't understand you, it may as well not have happened. I will tell you if you are not being clear enough.

Sydney Green Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Chrishonda Harper Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maria Hart Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ronald Hart Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rhona Ingram Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nathan Jagot Paradigm

I debated for four years at Caddo Magnet HS (graduated in 2018) in Shreveport, LA. I'm a sophomore at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, LA (Political Science major) and assistant coach for Caddo Magnet High School/Caddo Middle Magnet. I was coached by Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, Jake Crusan, and other Caddo/LA-area alumni.

Top-Level

For the email chain: njagotdebate@gmail.com

Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed, unless "sending" or "naming" the doc is taking an unusually long time.

No clipping, stealing prep, or being rude to your opponents or anyone else in the room. Debate should be fun and respectful without any additional stress.

I judge/coach a few Louisiana tournaments and try to do my part in making their overall quality better, both in terms of debate quality and community quality. If you're debating in Louisiana and I'm judging you, there's a section below you should read before the round.

Frame your arguments:

If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.

Be strategic:

Embedded clash is a thing, don't ignore it. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.

Clarity > speed:

I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.

Line by line is important:

This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance.

CX:

CX should be treated as another speech. Don't waste your time, i.e., don't use it to clean up/fill in your flow. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy, and it will help you. Please don't talk over anyone while this is happening. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches, it can only help you.

Critical Affirmatives:

I'll listen to it, but I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates.

***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.

***If you're reading this before round and are unsure about what your strategy with your K aff would be with me judging you based on everything above, I'd suggest reading an aff with a plan.

Framework/T-USfg:

I think this is the best strategy against planless affs. Though it's legitimate that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal. Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow. Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it. Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me, if executed effectively. Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - I think that makes in large part much easier for the negative to produce an effective in-round abuse story and why it may be [x] type of aff, but they couldn't prepare against its specific activism-based strategy.

Case:

You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. I would rather you sacrifice another 1-2 off and concentrate time on case (you'll be glad you did, the debate might go better for you and a 2NR on just case can be devastating).

Topicality:

I enjoy T debates, but don't get bogged down in the non-important parts of debate. Say why your vision of the topic is better and couch that in the language of your impacts. Caselists are super effective for me in this instance.

Counterplans:

If your CP text is long, please slow down. Specific PICs are good, I like them. Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically.

Obviously talk about how you access/solve the affirmative and you should have a clear net-benefit. I think counterplans are highly underutilized, and always think that no affirmative is totally perfect to where it can't lose to a certain counterplan.

One small thing about advantage counterplans - please utilize them if they're better than the other generic counterplan you've read in the 1NC. I'd rather you spend time prepping that out or having done so before hand, because a counterplan that's tailored to a certain affirmative that uses 1AC evidence to implicate said affirmative is both research/strategically savvy and shows you're at least trying to refute the affirmative creatively - which will help your ethos/speaker points.

Disadvantages:

Like them, I think they're underutilized. The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy. Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.

For new/small/interesting politics DAs (Farm Bill was a good example of this, and so was Shutdown): I think a good politics debate is fun and interesting, but the link and uniqueness cards should be on par and you should have a variety of links (and link cards) in the block. Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good. For these DA's, it's generally more difficult to garner specific offense against specific affs, but you should frame your cards + link analysis with that in mind, because the aff can go for "no specific link to the aff in the 2NR is a voting issue" + whatever else they say, and I'd probably be persuaded by that.

Kritiks:

I read kritiks when I debated - being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. There's always stuff I find myself being unfamiliar with, so if you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't be too buzzwordy and explain what your argument means.

But if you do want to include a K, here's some important things I value:

Link Contextualization - You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts.

Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.

Being aff and debating K's:

You should explain aff framework and the permutation in a clear, logical sense that doesn't link back to their offense. Winning that you get to weigh your aff because it's fair, predictable, and generates better debates because [x, y, z reasons] is generally something I agree with, but you have to have a defense of that in every speech and not let me forget that your aff is a thing, too.

Theory:

I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.

Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 3 is definitely questionable), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).

Final rebuttals:

These should be used to write my ballot --- as cheesy as it sounds to say it, a final rebuttal that can tell me what happened, who's winning which arguments with multiple reasons on individual arguments, and can clearly explain what voting aff/neg does is much more convincing than a debate where it comes down to who messed up more. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.

If Debating In Louisiana:

In general:

You don't need to shake my hand.

Underviews = :(. I don't need you to tell me again the things you just said.

Yes speed is fine, just make sure you're clear.

You don't have to ask for prep time.

Don't call me judge. Also, this will sound terrible, but hear me out - please don't waste speech time to thank me for judging you/"being an educational figure in this round that you'll learn "SO MUCH" from. I judge debates based off of who made better arguments and that just takes time away from that and is something that's an unwritten implication I feel like. It may be fine for other judges, but I love the activity and I'm in state judging you because I think Louisiana debate can always be improved and it's important to give back where you started - focus more on arguments during speech times, and you can always say "thanks for judging" after the RFD or as you're packing up.

If I judge you for LD (I do this in state sometimes because of small brackets) -

Make your points clear, why they're moral/ethical, and how your guidelines are distinct from whoever you're debating.

Argument interaction and answering arguments as they appear down the flow is a good skill here --- debating based off of the flow is much better. Focusing more on arguments rather than saying "they didn't answer this, this, and this...and that means they're doing..." rather than just answering arguments that ARE on the flow is much worse than just having a debate off of the flow. Focus more on "they say..., I say..." formatting of answering arguments to make those types of things clearer.

Final rebuttals should write my ballot for me and explain the debate in 2-3 ways that clearly show how & why you win.

You don't have to loudly announce prep time and all that, you should be timing your own prep and as long as you and the person debating you knows how much time you have left, it's not that big of an issue.

Clear affirmation of something and clear negation of something is always important. Granted I'm not totally proficient in LD because I did policy, you should make clear affirmation and negation clear. Explain your things, and debate them well! (also, I don't know what an "off-time" road map is but just tell me where you'll be focusing your speech and say that you'll signpost when you get to certain arguments - way more time efficient and clear).

Good luck and have fun!

Amber Kennedy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Harvey Latcha Paradigm

Not Submitted

Keithen Lewis Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kasi McCartney Paradigm

Debated for Caddo Magnet HS 1999-2004

Director of Debate Bossier Schools 2009 -2017

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

**update for Grapevine** - these are my first rounds on the topic please spend extra time fleshing out your topic specific scenarios

Personal Philosophy

Overall, I am essentially a policy maker. I feel that the goal of the debate is to find the best policy option. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community. I will vote for non-policy strategies if they can present a clean structure for their impacts. I know its out of style, but I prefer the affirmative to have a plantext.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument at all. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I do love tricky CP's (consult CP's, clever agent CP's, process CP's etc.) and it would be hard for me to believe that on this topic they're really that unpredictable.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clear understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for e is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

Jerry McCauley Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jonathan Mccartney Paradigm

Jonathan McCartney

Volunteer Assistant Coach for Caddo Magnet 1998 - Present

Former Assistant Coach at UT 2002-2005, debated for University of Texas 1999-2002, debated for Caddo Magnet HS 1994-1998

Please put me on the email chain: mccartney_jonathan@yahoo.com

I listen to all arguments and try to decide debates based on my flow and my understanding of the arguments as clearly articulated by the teams within the round. I used to judge a lot of college and high school policy debates. I am not as active of a judge now as I was a decade ago or so, but I do maintain involvement with high school policy debate on a volunteer basis. Here are my current thoughts on how I evaluate debates:

Framework: My default setting is to evaluate the policy consequences of a plan vs the status quo or a competitive alternative. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate through another framework, and I will work to decide framework debates based on the specific arguments made by the debaters within the debate.

Topicality: I like well developed Topicality debates with clear interpretations supported by compelling evidence. Distinctions in definition sources can go a long way, for example, reasons why a particular government agency definition might be preferable when interpreting words in the resolution can be persuasive. I tend to default to competing interpretations when deciding T debates, however I can be persuaded otherwise, particularly if the aff has a strong argument why their interpretation provides superior predictable ground.

Counter Plans: I like them. I tend to default neg on most counterplan theory, (Pics, Conditionality, etc) but I can definitely be persuaded otherwise. I think theory is a powerful tool which seems to be underutilized by many affirmative teams, but it has to be well explained. Well executed theory arguments can decide debates. As a default setting: I am generally fine with Consult CPs, Conditions CPs or Agent CPs that are debated well by the negative and have good evidence. While I probably default neg on Conditionality in the world of 1 or 2 CPs, I could be persuaded that 3 or 4 CPs or more might be too many - if an aff team debates the issue very well. If its a new aff, that could be a reason to be more flexible on conditionality if the negative articulates that argument clearly. Unless well developed otherwise, Pics Bad or Consult/Conditions CPs bad etc are probably just reasons to reject the argument (unless the neg completely drops a voting issue). I do not automatically Judge Kick a CP, unless the 2NR clearly explains how they want it to work. Example: 2NR says something like: "even if they win the perm, it only means CP is not competitive and it would just go away and we get the SQ, and then our DA still outweighs the Case." I can also be persuaded by the Aff that the neg is stuck with the CP if they go for it in the 2NR. While these are some general thoughts on CP theory: its all open to debate.

Kritks: I tend to prefer Kritks which specifically link to the plan or its advantages. Generic Links to the Status Quo are not my favorite, and I can to be persuaded that a Perm would probably solve them unless the negative team does a good job explaining otherwise. While I tend to default to a somewhat policy making style of impact evaluation, I can be persuaded that certain philosophical considerations can come first. Explaining how a Kritk turns the case or disproves affirmative impact claims is also critical in helping decide these debates.

Disads: I like them. The strength of the Link story is at the heart of good disadvantage debate. Making the link (or link turn) specific to the plan makes a big difference, and quality distinctions in link evidence can be decisive. Controlling uniqueness is important, but evaluating the link comes first. Reasoned explanation of why a disad impact outweights case and/or turns the case is good, but having evidence to support those claims is better.

Impact Evaluations Decide Debates: Explaining why the timeframe, probability or magnitude of a given impact outweights another impact is critical to deciding debates in late rebuttals. Having evidence to support that impact claim is better. For example, a timeframe claim with a warrant is good, but having evidence to support it is decisive. Explaining how one impact accesses the other team’s impacts within a debate, or how various impacts interact with one another is also crucial. In close debates, the team doing the better impact assessment in the 2NR/2AR tends to win.

Speaker Points: Please be clear and be polite.


Dominick Mercer Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Margo Miller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Breanna Moffett Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aubry Moffett Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Molloy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hannah Morris Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alma Nicholson Paradigm

Christopher Norman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Neill Normand Paradigm

Not Submitted

Scott Parson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Callie Pharr Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lillian Poe Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Ponder Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kelee Portee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hannah Ross Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Leslie Salley Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Josh Stewart Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Lora Teutsch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sachin Thorat Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lindsay Thurman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nandini Tivakaran Paradigm

I debated CX as a student at Airline High School for 3 years, and I attended the Emory National Debate Institute twice. I also debated IPDA for a year for Bossier Parish Community College and Airline High School. I am currently a freshman at George Mason University, studying Economics (so be sure to explain that econ impact smile)

I will flow any argument. If you run a kritik, however, please slow down and avoid spreading, and explain all arguments clearly. Please take the time to explain the fundamentals of the philosophy if you run a K. K-Affs are fine as well, but the same rules apply as stated above. Framework must be contextualized to the debate. I absolutely love a strategic T, and I am a fan of CP/DA strats. If you do run a CP, however, you must have a clearly explained net benefit. If you run a policy strat, clearly spell out the internal link chain, or it may be hard to buy an existential impact.

I value quality of arguments far more than quantity of arguments, so please slow down and explain your arguments clearly. This does not mean that dropping key arguments will be overlooked. This simply means that, at times, I will overlook smaller concessions if your arguments are explained more clearly, if you give a better impact calc, and if you show a better understanding of the debate round as a whole. In general, I am not a fan of spreading.

Open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. You don't need to take prep time to email/flash evidence, as long as it is not excessive. I value fairness of debate highly, and will not tolerate card clipping. Please be respectful and use the round as an opportunity to learn and grow.

Please add me to the email chain (ntivakaran@gmail.com), but note that I will not do any of the work by reading the internals for you.

I am unfamiliar with this year's resolution, so please do not assume I am familiar with this year's common strategies.

If you have any questions about the round after it is completed, feel free to email me at ntivakaran@gmail.com, and I will try my best to clarify anything from the RFD.

Sanjeevi Tivakaran Paradigm

I am a parent of debaters, and I would be considered a lay judge. Please do not spread. Speak slowly and clearly, and please do not use any debate jargon. Thank you.

Keli Traylor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dwain Traylor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Christopher Vincent Paradigm

Christopher Vincent
Director of Speech & Debate
Isidore Newman School

Add me to the email chain: cjvinc08@gmail.com

Additional Conflicts: Dulles (NB & AW)- TX, Brown School (KY), Torrey Pines (CA)

LD PARADIGM!!!

Additional Conflicts: Holy Cross School (LA), Dulles (NB, & AW) (TX), Brown School (KY),
This is my 16th year in debate. I competed for 4 years in high school, 5 years at the University of Louisville, and was the graduate assistant for the University of Louisville debate team. I have been actively coaching high school LD and Policy for the past 8 years and was previously the Director at Brown and Fern Creek in KY, along with being the Director of Debate at LSU.

I view my role as a judge as an educator. While I believe that debaters should shape this activity, I do not believe that judges are or even can be neutral in this process. I will always try to embrace the teachable moment in debate. I debated for 5 years in what the community deemed "performance debate." If you put me in the back of the room you either know me, read this, or a combo of the two. Long story short: Do what you do, be who you are, and defend your actions in the debate.

I evaluate debates holistically, which means I prefer the debate to tell me a story and it requires more than just winning your argument is true. You MUST WIN WHY THAT ARGUMENT MATTERS. I will attempt to evaluate the debate as objectively as possible. I say "as possible" because I do not believe that judges can truly be objective. We are all humans, and we all think and formulate opinions and thoughts. Failure to do comparative analysis in debate will result in messiness, and inevitably some level of judge interventions (which you don't want).

Here are a few of my predispositions coming into the round:

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, OR ABLEIST IN NATURE!!! Depending on the nature of the offense, this may result in an automatic loss!!!

1) Speed- Slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, please don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you.

2) Dropped Arguments- Dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote someone down. Don't expect me to automatically pull the trigger on a dropped argument without you doing the work necessary and giving me an in depth analysis of why that argument shuts down the entire debate. I evaluate debates holistically.

3) Theory- Theory is not a substantive response to critical positions and arguments. This is not to say that I won't vote for theory, but you must prove ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE. One of the unique aspects of debate, is that it gives us a chance to explore different positions, and to be critically self-reflexive. Thus, my interpretation of the topic may not be the same as yours, and that is okay. Theory seems to limit the liberating and unique educational opportunity this activity provides us.

-I do not believe in neutral education, neutral conceptions of fairness, or even ground, or limits. If you run theory, be ready to defend it. Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it. You should probably read their literature and engage it. I will still stand by this position. If you are not reading the literature then you probably link to their criticism in the first place. Don't be scared, just engage.

4) Critical Arguments- Don't run them just because I am in the back of the room. While I am familiar with a wide range of literature, and while I have coached students with a wide range of literature, I will not be impressed just because you do it too. There are implications to the things we talk about in debate, and I believe that our social location inevitably shape the beliefs and ideologies we hold. If you do not believe that there is a place for performative/critical arguments in debate, and if you believe that social location and subsequent discussions have no place in this space, I am probably not the judge for you.

5) PAPERLESS DEBATE: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer.

TOC 2015 UPDATE: All ethics challenges will be decided through the infamous RuPaul Paradigm: "The Time Has Come for you to Lip Sync for your life."

Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

POLICY PARADIGM

I debated for 5 years at the University of Louisville and engaged exclusively in what the community deemed “performance debate.” I believe that debate is what you make it and you only get out of it what you want and what you put into it. I expect that if you put me in the back of the room you either know me, read this, or it’s a combination of the two. Be who you are and defend your actions in the round. The most important thing you should know about me is that I love debate and I believe that debate is a place where we should exchange ideas, beliefs, and differences. I view my role as a judge as an educator and while I believe that debaters shape the activity through the rounds, I don’t believe judges are neutral in this process. That means I will always attempt to embrace the teachable moment in the debate round when given the opportunity.

I promise I will flow the round but will probably not use the flow the same way you do. I believe that the debate should tell me a story and so I want to know how the arguments interact with one another and how they function. I will not examine arguments as isolated parts of a speech, but instead holistically.

I don’t believe affirmatives have to be topical. They can be, but they don’t have to be. You should just defend your actions.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC IN THEIR NATURE.

PAPERLESS: Prep time ends when the jump drive leaves your computer and is in your opponent's hand.

Finally, make smart arguments, clash with your opponent, and defend what you say. I will do my best to evaluate the debate I am given. While I ideologically believe that identity shapes how we approach debate, and while I debated exclusively in one style, I was trained in traditional and nontraditional debate and so I will attempt to evaluate the debate I am given.

If you have any other questions just ask!!!

Jenna Winkler Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Zenter Paradigm

Not Submitted

chloe brown Paradigm

Not Submitted