IHSSA State Debate Tournament

2019 — Ankeny, IA/US

Christopher Jackson Paradigm

Updated 10/21/19

Add me to the chain: christopherjpjackson at gmail.

Background:

Ames High (’14)-qualified to the TOC and NFL nationals

University of Iowa (’17)-Dr. Dave once called my extension of topicality “lucid and succinct”

Currently a graduate assistant in the Communication department at Wake Forest. My research interests are mainly related to climate change communication.

Genealogy:

Just some of the people who have influenced how I think about debate include: Dr. David Hingstman, Brian Rubaie, Kyle Vint, Michigan KM, Brooke Kimbrough.

Overview

Existence precedes essence. Or, to use the phrase I see littered across numerous paradigms, you do you. My default setting as a judge is nonprescriptivist, and this is reflected in my voting record. Partially from years of playing baseball, I conceptualize the role of the judge as akin to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes, though that itself can be contested by the participants.

Specifics:

K: I am primarily versed in the cap and so-called high theory set of arguments. I likely have a passing understanding/have previously judged whatever K you are thinking about reading. I am not sufficiently predisposed for or against any position to the extent that it becomes expedient to read something other than what you're best at. I prefer, in a strictly relative sense, more systematic criticisms to individual/subject-centered ones. So, for example, I tend to be a better judge for arguments centered on Afropessimism compared to embodied performance.

CP: I'm probably about one standard deviation more willing than the average judge to vote aff on counterplan theory than most PROVIDED the affirmative does the work throughout the rebuttals beyond just reading extensions. The theoretical validity of some of the jankier counterplans (cc: Lopez) strikes me as seriously questionable, but again, the aff needs to do the work. Incidentally….

Theory: I don't presume to reject the argument and not the team unless prompted.

T: Yes, please. I am very drawn to arguments about grammar and syntax. I loved going for T-restrict versus carbon tax affirmatives on the climate topic.

DA: <3. While I do broadly accept the standard model of debate (and offense/defense more specifically), I can be convinced that there is functionally zero risk of a link or impact. That the chance of something happening is so low as to be the equivalent of statistical white noise=terminal defense.

A pet peeve: "fiat is an illusion". Absent specific contextualization to the round or an on-the-nose card, please, no. I have yet to hear a round where this argument was deployed in a manner that made me think “I’m really glad we had a discussion of how nothing happens when the judge votes aff” at the end of the day.

Lincoln-Douglas

I have judged plenty of both national-circuit and old-school LD rounds and am comfortable with either. Value/criterion is useful but not necessary.

Kirk Kelloway Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kyle Kopf Paradigm

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 University of Iowa ‘22

I want to be on the email chain: krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School, American Heritage Boca/Delray NT

Bio: I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year. I taught at NSD Flagship and NSD Philadelphia in 2018.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, LARP, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using LARP to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

K – 1

Theory/T – 2/3

Phil – 2/3

Tricks – 3/4

LARP – 5

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names.

SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS, PRONOUNS, ETC:

I stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will in not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. Even if it doesn’t affect debate but you just want to talk still feel free to let me know! :)

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc. I enjoy seeing a K executed well.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. People read T against me very often, so I am familiar with that too. I think the strategy behind Theory/T and the tech of Theory/T is cool and fun to watch. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the argument on theory

- Drop the debater on T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp” is sufficient

Phil:

I went to Valley, so I started out reading phil. I enjoy the nuance of framework debate, especially related to competing moral theories.

Tricks:

I never read tricks and I haven’t seen them in action too much, but I will still evaluate them like any other argument. I think tricks are often very fun, so I’d enjoy seeing them in debate.

LARP:

I never LARPed and I rarely engaged in the LARP debate, but I will also evaluate it like any other argument. I think the depth and applicability of LARP makes it enjoyable to watch.

Postrounding:

I think post rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, preventing hacking, etc. Always feel free to postround me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is conceded, you do not need to extend the warrant.

*if an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

*I won’t evaluate embedded clash unless an argument is made as for why I should.

Lydia Magalhaes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thomas Mayes Paradigm

8 rounds

You are likely to run into me at Iowa tournaments.

Please keep in mind the following three things, which apply to any form of argument you may consider using:
1. Tell me what to prefer.
2. Tell me why to prefer it.
3. Tell me that you did what I should prefer.

I did L/D during the Reagan administration, but I have no views about how L/D should be. I am not tied to a historical ideal of the activity. In my view, the nature of the activity is to be resolved by coaches, competitors, and competition committees. My job is to evaluate the round that is presented to me. I evaluate rounds based on their internal competitiveness, not against some external standard of goodness.

I have no default "positions" or evaluative mechanisms. I will listen to any type of argument. If there is weighing to do, please do it. Arguments do not weigh themselves.

Since this is a competitive activity, and not a seminar or a discussion group, I must award a ballot to someone. If there is no reason to affirm or negate at the end of the round, and I am left to my own devices (meaning neither competitor has done a good job of attending to the three items above), I will penalize the debater who made the biggest strategic error by assigning that debater the loss. I have resorted to this tie-breaker once, but it was in a bid round. Don't leave me to my own devices. Attend to the three items above.

Also, since this is a competitive activity, I will be constrained by any instructions on the ballot.

I am fairly generous with speaker points, tending to cluster around a 27.5 on the customary 1-30 scale. To ensure I remain generous, (1) be funny, (2) be yourself, (3) be smart, (4) be decent to your adversary, and (5) keep trying and pressing your positions until the timer goes off (even if you think you're losing).

Evan McKinney Paradigm

I debated for 5 years at WDM Valley. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am attending Iowa State University to study Computer Engineering, Physics, and Math.

Overview: You can literally do whatever you want and I will do my best to evaluate the round as tab as I can. I can flow fast only if you are clear. I am comfortable with any argument being made in the round, but would prefer that your arguments follow some sort of logic or justification. I debated framework and theory, but feel fine judging any type of debate. I decide a winner by evaluating offense to what ever framing mechanism is won in the debate, therefore doing weighing will put you ahead.

As a debater I was most comfortable debating under a truth testing, debate is a game paradigm. I will not vote for you because you run a trolly a priori. I will vote for you if you run a trolly a priori and win the argument as a voter.

I only consider arguments made in the round. If I don't understand an argument I will not vote on it. I will not do any work for either debater. Do not let the debate get to that point and you'll be fine.

Tips and Tricks for a Big Win:

1) I have bias for arguments I think are creative
2) Making it clear what offense you are going for (including overviews/voters) makes it easier for me to give you a ballot
3) Have fun and be nice

4)Don't say hyperreality is bad

Speaks:
1) I will average a 28.5-29.5 (not sure how high this is so it may change as I become a more experienced judge)
2) 27- ok, 28-good, 29 -great, 30 -best
3) if you want speaks please ask me privately after the round and I will tell you

Joie Otting Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi, I'm Joie. I'm a sophomore at Agnes Scott College (Atlanta) majoring in philosophy. I did primarily LD in high school, but I've also found varying levels of success in PF, World Schools, Policy, and Big Questions.

I enjoyed k debate in HS and that's what I prefer to judge, but I can be persuaded to vote on almost anything.

In general, I just want to see a good debate with a lot of clash. Quality over quantity and truth over tech (although tech is definitely important!). I will do the very best I can to be impartial and vote only off of what is said in round, but to say that I have no preconceived notions or biases would be a lie and you shouldn't trust any judge who claims to be completely tabula rasa.

Specifically:

Ks regarding oppression are a good strategy in front of me. We have so many systemic problems in this world and I'd love to see a discussion on the best way to fix them. I love performance. If you wrote a poem or something, please read it in front of me.

I don't care if you're topical (or if neither debater likes the current topic and wants to debate a different one), but I am sympathetic to the fact that not everyone has access to the resources needed to learn how to be successful at this type of debate, and am therefore sympathetic to theoretical criticisms of non-topical affs.

I am a philosophy major in an analytic department. I do not understand or particularly care for continental philosophy, but I'll listen to it. You're just going to have to explain it really really well - no one has been able to do this during a round in front of me before but feel free to try to change that.

Theory has the potential to be so interesting, but it almost never is. I would love to see a good, fresh, in-depth theory debate.

I don't particularly care for policy-making type arguments, but I'll listen. I'm much more interested in policy strategies to solve real problems. I'm very sympathetic to theory against hyper-specific plans that significantly limit the neg's ground.

Framework-heavy cases also have the potential to be really good and cool but almost never are. I want to hear some good philosophy but I really don't want to hear nonsense being attributed to philosophers I've read lol. I don't like spikes or "a prioris" and I'm probably not going to vote for you based on one quick sentence that you said in the AC that the neg missed. I probably missed it too tbh.

I was never that great with speed so please slow down for me at least for tags. If I miss something important that's on you. I would so rather you slow down and take the time to make one or two really strong arguments than speed through 12 blips.

Humor is great and I don't care if you swear. I also don't care if you sit or stand or wander around the room during speeches and cx and I will give you a weird look if you try to call me Ms. Otting (Joie is fine).

I'm not going to tolerate racism, misogyny, homophobia, or any type of bigotry. Trigger warnings are important, but the line between something that needs one and something that doesn't is a bit tricky, so I have a hard time voting on theory related to them (but I will if need be). Also, I wish I didn't have to say this but since it's come up: I'm a lesbian, plz don't assume I'm straight and plz don't call me queer. I get that queer is used as an umbrella term in a lot of the literature so I 100% won't fault you for that (like it won't hurt your speaks) but just know that I don't like that word and if you can avoid using it while still talking about LGBT+ issues you'll get major brownie points with me.

If you have any other questions/comments/concerns, feel free to email me at ottingjo@gmail.com. Also, yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Just go ahead and add me.

Cheri Shatto Paradigm

Not Submitted

Manasi Singh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Don Stanner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Randy Stone Paradigm

I have judged mostly PF and have just a little LD experience. I come from a speech and theatre background, so I expect you to speak clearly. I can flow fairly quickly, but I give a lot of weight to making your arguments clear and supported. I judge on logical ideas that are well supported not the minutiae LD.

Please, look at me as much as possible!

Randy Stone

Taylor Yocom Paradigm

Debated for Des Moines Roosevelt (LD) from 2007-2011

Debated for University of Iowa (Policy) from 2011-2012

I am judging infrequently - but am comfortable with speed and flow based arguments/strategies. Speed is fine- make sure it's clear. Have no oppositions to any form of argument as long as you are not racist/sexist/hateful to your opponents. Clear crystallization/voters is important to me!