Bentonville Wild West Invitational
2019 — Centerton, AR/US
Eric Anderson Paradigm
Courtney Brooks Paradigm
Joel Brown Paradigm
Tom Burgmeier Paradigm
Michelle Catherine Walker Paradigm
Mandy Cook Paradigm
Christopher Daniel Marston Paradigm
Ruth Davis Paradigm
Kaitlyn Davis Paradigm
Heiddy Diaz Paradigm
Joyce Dooley Paradigm
Cassandra Edwards Paradigm
Jason Edwards Paradigm
Tarun Eisen Paradigm
Jenny Fox Paradigm
Maryclaire Franklin Paradigm
Grayson Galland Paradigm
I'll tell you in the round.
Sara Gardner Paradigm
LaTonia George Paradigm
Christy Gore Paradigm
Melissa Goswick Paradigm
Thomas Guarino Paradigm
I am a student at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville and I study French and Political Science. I debated for three years in high school and have competed both regionally and nationally. I mainly have done Public Forum and Congressional debate; however, I have also competed in policy and Lincoln-Douglas and I am familiar with the styles. So you know how I view the round I separate it into two parts, speaking and argumentation. SO, with that said...
Rhetoric and speaking style are imperative to any debate round. How you say what you say is just as important as what you are saying. Remember, the point is to convince me what you say is correct and matters, so don't just spew information, persuade me. Also important, I can handle speed to a point: if you are either too fast or unclear for me I will make it very clear in the round. Look for the signs, my body language will indicate how I feel about your speaking, not your arguments. Also, be sure to provide a clear roadmap before every speech and signpost along the way. I need you to let me know where to flow things or they might not end up where you want and end up not being evaluated.
I expect complete arguments, that means claims, warrants, and impacts. If you lack any aspect of an argument, I will not evaluate it. I will not take shadow extensions, if you want an argument extended you better put some time and effort into it and let me know what it means and is, because, if it's important enough for me to keep flowing it's important enough for you to extend fully.
As for types of arguments, anything goes - theory, kritiks, topicality, framework, etc; bring it on, I love fresh, new, and varied arguments. Please try and avoid generics, generally the more unique and novel an argument is the more interesting and thus more convincing it is. I will do all I can to remove any personal preconceptions, biases, or external knowledge, so that what is said in the round I will for the most part take at face value. Furthermore, if a point goes uncontested and extended throughout the round I will assume it to be true (however if it is dropped, it falls off of my flow and I will not allow you to pick it up thereafter so don't forget to extend). In the end I vote off of the flow and what is on it, so, make sure I'm getting what you want me to get onto my flow.
Other Important Notes
Particularly those of you who care about speaker points, know that your evaluation begins the instant you enter the debate space. Keep your etiquette in mind in how you interact with your partner - if applicable - your opponent, and me. I'm rather traditional when it comes to formality so I would appreciate the usage of common courtesy - e.g. introductions when entering the space, shaking hands before and after round, etc. - so please do keep that in mind.
Have good recent evidence. I reserve the right to evaluate any card after the round I find questionable and heavily frown upon practices such as power tagging and card clipping. I also take evidence violations very seriously, make sure you have complete citations and you are not misrepresenting evidence.
Be polite. I know we're all passionate people with a strong desire to win, that's no excuse to be rude. Know the fine line between aggression and assertiveness as well as that between passion and arrogance/rudeness.
Don't violate the rules of each style and know what each one is about - e.g. public forum no plans and debate centered on the merits of the resolution, L.D. ought to center on value debate based on a framework, CX has some course of action taken under the umbrella of the resolution.
Timers, I want them going on both sides for every speech/questioning period. For prep, don't tell me how much you're using, just tell me when you start and stop. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times. I'm good with flex prep.
Cross examination, do not look at your opponent, do not look down: look at the judge. As well, always stand in any questioning period - the only exception is grand cross fire for public forum.
I DO NOT want to be part of any email chain or flash exchange. Debate is about how well you oratorically persuade and argue. I do not want to read your case and points, I want to hear them.
Most importantly, have fun and try to learn!!! Never miss the chance to grow as a person and try to take something from each round.
Snigdha Gutha Paradigm
Elizabeth Gwatney Paradigm
Grant Hearne* Paradigm
Joseph Herrington Paradigm
Jamie Hodge Paradigm
Carla Hundley Paradigm
Grant James Paradigm
I competed on the Texas circuit from 2009 to 2013, primarily in LD. Competed in the 2013 ToC in LD and NFL Nationals in ‘11-‘13.
I view debate as an incredibly valuable educational activity and think debaters should persuade the judge that their view of the world is better than their opponent’s view.
The standard is a very important tool for evaluating arguments and as such I expected debaters to spend time winning that part of the round.
Speed is fun but being articulate and strategic is more important.
An argument is acceptable as long as there is a warrant.
If you read theory, tell me why debate would be better if your rule were true in every round.
Generally, I dislike overly complicated K theory because people run it to make themselves feel cool. That being said, there are certainly good arguments to be made. Just make sure you can explain those arguments slowly and clearly.
The most important part of the round is to have fun. Winning is also good.
I always spend time talking through the round because I think it is the most valuable part of the round.
Ruth Keeley Paradigm
Lyn Kenison Paradigm
Joseph Kieklak Paradigm
Contact and Email Chain (include me in email chain and happy
to answer and questions): email@example.com
Director of Debate at Parkview Magnet HS
You are welcome to call me Joe. He/him.
Affirmatives: I can serve you best in a round focused on policy debate, and I shouldn’t be a high pref for teams that employ very technical kritikal affirmatives. I don’t dislike kritikal affirmatives, and I think you should “do what you do,” but I am just not the best judge for them. Also, I probably have a lower threshold for T than others, so be wary if your aff is probably not topical and you’ve had a tough time answering T.
Negatives: Neg flex is good, particularly against new affirmatives. My favorite strat was T-DA-CP-Case (DA as a net benefit) or T-K-CP-Case, with a boatload case in the 2NC.
General: An organized line-by-line/organized clash is a great way to win my ballot. Explaining which cards link or turn other cards/parts of the case is important to me. My preferences/defaults are below, sure, but I also will do my best to divorce myself from them when you tell me do it. I think I am in the back of the room for you to tell me what’s most important in the debate.
Regardless of this paradigm, I would rather you do what you enjoy most in a debate round than overadapt. Debate is an activity for you, and I see myself here to serve you the best I can. This paradigm should read more as a "be wary that Joe isn't best for 'X'" rather than a, "Joe demands that I do 'X.'"
I will treat all debaters with courtesy and respect, and I expect you to do the same. Pronouns shall be observed and discrimination is not tolerated.
I stan affs that specify what kind of weapons reduction is happening. I'm also coach policy style affirmatives, so that’s the style of aff with that I am most familiar. That being said, I am compelled by any convincing affs, even those without plan texts. I am not super adept at these, so please help me analyze the literature and functionality of the affirmative so that I can best serve you. I would not pref me for performance affs or super technical kritikal affs in general.
I evaluate the impacts of T for debate and the education in round, and swapping interpretations back and forth is fine. I will definitely vote on T if convinced that the aff is ruining debate with their model/aff and it's made the centerpiece of the 2NR. I have a high threshold for T's that run a violation that says the aff is being too specific.
Net benefit, specific plan text, mutually exclusive to avoid perms, clear solvency advocate. Consult and agent CPs are not the end of the world to me. PICs are fine.
Politics DAs: Uniqueness has to be recent.
You do not need to win an alt if the impact turns the aff. This is where you would benefit the most in explaining each step of the argument pretty thoroughly, especially if your K isn’t mainstream.
I love theory, but I have a very hard time being convinced of two arguments: condo bad and new affs bad. Conditionality is key for negatives to be able to maximize the role of the neg in debate. New affs are part of the affirmative maximizing its role.
Theoretically I have no problem, but please slow down a bit if you’re reading several individual pieces of theory or a link/impact wall that you need me to flow as you’re reading it.
Won't be revealing in round, but do use this system provided by Wake Forest's: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html
Themby Kobus Paradigm
Murthy Kolluru Paradigm
Padmaja Kolluru Paradigm
Joe Labadie Paradigm
Jesse Lane Paradigm
Mollie Macias Paradigm
Jessica Margetich Paradigm
Ta-Neisha Marshall Paradigm
Carol Martin-Longwell Paradigm
Gabriel McLaughlin Paradigm
I'm pretty unbiased. There aren't any big red flags in my paradigms; don't worry. Just make sure you:
A) Make Sense. Consider me a lay judge. Explain everything thoroughly, in a way that I can understand. If I haven't been exposed to your argument before and you don't explain it in a way that I can understand, then I won't consider the argument.
II) Are Respectful. Don't be excessively abusive, and don't disrespect your opponent (that goes for your partner, too). This includes Cross-X. Be nice; nobody likes a shouting match. Stay professional.
3.1) Are Topical. I don't appreciate you going outside of the resolution. While my vote will be largely situational (depends on your execution of the argument), just know that you're less likely to win.
Speed is okay, but no spreading. If you are going too fast, or are incomprehensible, I will try to flow as best I can and tell you to slow down in your future speeches (I may not get all of your arguments down, though).
I like OnCase arguments; generally don't like Kritikal arguments. However, that won't be solely what I vote on. I'll evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.
G. McLaughlin, BHS Honorary President
Maria Montero Paradigm
Katy Moore Paradigm
Kyla Morris Paradigm
Brenda Moyes Paradigm
Howard Moyes Paradigm
Ean Nebel Paradigm
Chris Nicholas Paradigm
Fernanda Palacioa Paradigm
Troy Parker Paradigm
Stephanie Parker Paradigm
Teddy Patterson Paradigm
Tim Peerbolte Paradigm
Sean Petersen Paradigm
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, Big Question is a synthesis of examples, evidence and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the ideas, philosophy, and experience that stem from the resolution while tying back to the original intention of the resolution.
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that the John Templeton Foundation has stated that Big Questions is at the intersection of Science, Religion, and Philosophy. For my part, I heavily lean toward the scientific and philosophical aspects of the resolution, the religious playing a much lesser aspect for my judging.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, I do not mind if Neg starts some attack on their constructive but they have the Rebuttal for that so it should be minimal, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there are more on your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Consolidation is for crystalizing the main ideas and the Rational should be for voting issues and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
Please note: The ideas of Big Question is application, if you present an idea and do not expand on it or extend it in other speeches through evidence, analysis or consideration the argument will not stand on its own merits. You must apply it and extend for it to have impact in the round.
A word about style within the round:
DO NOT SPREAD OR SPEED READ in a round in which I am a judge. If you use excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points to "plow under" your opponent in a round that I judge you have an extremely difficult time winning the round.
If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
Logical Fallacies are strongly discouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Within Big Question Debate Solvency and Inherency are never voters for me as they need a plan to tie to, a Topicality argument might be acceptable if your opponent is way off base from the resolution, but I doubt that will be a consideration at the National Tournament.
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove they lose.
As in all Debate, AFF has the Burden of Proof and Neg has the Burden of Clash. If you don't meet your burden you can not win.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
Rebecca Powers Paradigm
Todd Reiff Paradigm
Virginia Rhame Paradigm
Bob Roark Paradigm
David Robertson Paradigm
Scotty Roller Paradigm
Austin Ross Paradigm
Indu Sankaranarayanan Paradigm
Jessica Seiboldt Paradigm
Spencer Shaw Paradigm
Spencer Shaw Paradigms
Hey. My name is Spencer. Call me Spencer. Cool? Cool. I have debated all 3 main styles of debate, at Bentonville High School, in Arkansas, at a reasonably high level for 3 years. I'm currently a U of A Sophomore studying Criminal Justice, Sociology, and Psychology. I won some awards over the years, I was an officer on my team, etc. Pronouns are He/Him. If your case has a significant reliance on arguments that include sexual assault, please say that before hand.
Formalities out of the way;
I think each style is different enough to warrant it's own section, but the general rules are:
- Spreading is only for CX. Not LD, and certainly not PF. Don't spread if you can't spread well.
- I absolutely must be able to see your case. Email me, use a flash drive, I don't care- get me your case. i will ask for any evidence you wish to present throughout the round and before each speech. because of that, flashing/emailing/otherwise communicating your files/ev is not prep time
- Cross Examination is binding, but I don't flow it. If you want to make an argument based off of Cross Ex, tell me specifically why it's important and why i should evaluate it on the flow.
- Tell me what to vote for. Good God, tell me what I'm doing here. When left to my own devices, although I try and be the most tabula rasa judge I know how to be, I have a preference for conservative politics and for affirmative presumption in LD/CX, and no presumption for PF.
- Debate, though technically what you make it, is a place for change. If you feel like you have to rap or perform or blow up a kiddie pool during your speech to make whatever God-forsaken point you feel is that important, do it. But be ready to have some seriously credible stuff to back it up or I will drop you. My least favorite thing in debate is where debaters try and champion a cause (racism, the feminist movement, etc.) and use it to win without really believing it- Now, obviously, I probably don't know your story or know how much you believe in what you're saying, but I also have a really strong BS meter. If you can't answer questions, I get suspicious. Arguments that target a people group are probably not good.
- I will evaluate abuse. Full stop. I firmly believe that there is the potential for abusive argumentation, questioning, or behavior in a debate round. Trying to make the debate unfair for your opponent is bad form. You can win without unfairly restricting your opponent, if you deserve to win at all. I am a "reject the arg" guy on abuse, not a "reject the debater" guy.
I debated Oceans, Surveillance, and China. I'm very familiar with the aff cases for these topics. Education is easily my favorite topic by far, so expect me to learn a lot about it.
In novice policy, with extremely limited exceptions, the 1AC should be a plan.
In varsity, do your thing. I don't care. You MUST BE TOPICAL- yes, even in varsity policy, and yes, k affs can be topical, but you need to prove that you are. I will always evaluate Topicality, especially against K Affs or Affs with no plantext.
definitions debate isnt meant to a way to limit your opponent. it is a way to have a baseline so that you dont argue but then figure out you meant the same things. i believe this has been super twisted by all forms of debate.
have them, please. every case needs good impacts.
I debated K's for my entire career, K's are chill with me. Make a clear alt, and a clear link. If ever curious, ask me if I've read your authors.
Link hard. Link often. Link well. Impact it out. Make good analysis.
My favorite thing about debate is theory and framework. Read anything under the sun and I will listen to you. Creativity is awesome. Also, Antonio 95 is not a framework argument without analysis.
I need your case. I will say clear twice and stop flowing. Even if I'm reading your speech as you're saying it, you better actually enunciate.
LD was my favorite style of debate in high school. I debated in Arkansas and Oklahoma, so I have experience with both traditional and progressive debate.
K's in traditional are still cool. Plans are not. CP's are not. Framework is the most important thing in any LD round, progressive or traditonal.
If there is ever a mismatch between you and your opponent's circuit type (e.g traditional AFF vs. progressive NEG), the progressive debater MUST "debate down" to your opponent in order to get full speaks. If you knowingly and purposely (at least by my judgement) attempt to confuse or screw over your opponent via speed or argumentation style, you will get your speaks basically nuked.
I debated PF at the Arkansas TOC 2017. Don't have a plan. Don't have a [pseudo] plan. Don't have anything vaguely similar to a plan. Sit down during crossfire. Be nice, especially in PF.
sidequest: make a league of legends reference for .5 extra speaks, unless you're at 30 already
sidequest 2: reference any of Brandon Sanderson's novels for the same point value
Bree Shrum Paradigm
Andrea Sisti Paradigm
I have teams that participate in Lincoln Douglas, Policy Debate, Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate.
Public Forum Paradigm:
I enjoy a clearly organized debate. Organization is key to maintain clash throughout the round.
SPEED: From my experience, debaters that card-dump and speed through speeches sacrifice a great deal of clarity and persuasiveness that is the fundamental in nature of Public Forum debate. Typically, the amount of evidence added to the case when spreading through speeches is not worth the sacrifice. I would rather hear fewer contentions and quality arguments over quantity.
Read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. Also, be sure to provide clear warrants for your impacts. I appreciate big impacts, but it is critical that you flesh out your impacts with strong internal links. Explain and extend and make sure that you emphasize what is most important in the round. Provide clear voters in those final speeches.
Don't be abusive with time. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing. Plan your speeches accordingly. Keep track of your own time as well as your opponent's. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times, including prep.
Make sure that your cards tell the same story as what you are saying. If cards come into question and it's fundamentally important in my decision, I will call for them at the end of the debate. I do value the quality of evidence highly in the round. 1 quality card outweighs 5 poor pieces of evidence.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge.
Overall, this is your debate so have fun with it and get creative. Best of luck.
Congressional Debate Paradigm:
As a Congressional Debate coach, I enjoy rounds with a lot of clash, creative speech structures, fiery speaking, and thoughtful questions. In terms of delivery and argumentation breakdown, I value speeches as a 50/50 split in importance. Delivery and content are equally important in my mind.
I understand you may be hesitant to give speeches early on in the session for lack of clash, but I won't take that into account when ranking. However, as the session progresses, there should always be direct refutation.
Please be passionate in your speeches, but remember decorum and professionalism. Respect your opponents.