Georgia Southern Peach District Tournament
Quang Bui Paradigm
Background: Debated mostly Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School although I did a couple of PF tournaments here and there.
Last Update 11/16/16
Summary: I usually prefer DA Case CP debate but K's are fine if I can understand it. Really don't want to vote on theory though.
- I don't take prep for flashing or emailing unless the tournament is running behind or tab is nagging me to get done faster
- Keep the debate calm and more relaxed
- I probably won't look at evidence unless it is specifically indicted or highlighted
- I haven't had a lot of experience with this topic so please don't use too many abbreviations and acronyms
- I don't know much about China policy as of this year but I know a good amount of Japanese politics and policy if that helps you at all
- Please don't read an econ impact in front of me if your internal links aren't amazing. I study economics and unless your internal link and solvency cards are by economists with a ton of numbers. I like warming impacts and sciencey impacts like nuclear fusion since they interest me and I would probably more likely to pay attention to them
- I'm getting tired of heavy impact debates and overviews. It seems like most of the time the debate boils down to nothing
- Solvency debates and debates about the actual aff are the most enjoyable for me since they make the debate less generic. They also have to be explained a lot more in detail since I probably won't know it
- I really like DA debates
- The DA debate is probably going to be won or lost at the link level so I would probably focus on that
- I like CP's but I'm sometimes easily confused about what they do so you have to make it clear in CX or the 2NC as to what it does
- I'm fine with judge kicking the CP even if you don't say it, given you extend case
- I'm very hit or miss when it comes to K's. Often I get very confused by the barrage of information 2N's introduce in the block. Here's my advice if you decide to go for a K in front of me, slow down when you get to the K flow and explain everything as if I've never debated before
- K debates are way too technical and I hate that. Debate the K like how your authors would, slowly and philosophically
- The link debate is honestly the only important thing about the K debate. If you run a K, I'm pretty much going to agree that you that you will outweigh the aff. I will, however, give you a much higher threshold to meet for the link so you need to spend about 75% of your time on the link debate
- K tricks are stupid and cheap ways to win rounds so I'm probably not voting for them
- On the aff the first thing you should do is just hammer that 1NC link evidence. It's usually super generic
- I probably won't for T unless it is pretty much obvious that the aff is untopical. I'm probably going to default to reasonability
- If it is a questionable aff, then please make the impacts clear and go slow.
- If you prove that the aff is untopical but still lose the impact debate then I'll probably still just vote for you
- I honestly don't know how I feel about these since I've only encountered a single unorthodox debate. I would prefer it if your argument is topical
- If you do something really weird I'm probably going to have this confused look on my face and default to the more orthodox team
I hate voting on theory. Please don't make it a theory debate and if you do slow down. Theory about one specific argument is a reason to reject the argument.
- Word PICs: have to be extremely justifiable
- 50 State Fiat: stupid but not an immediate reason to reject
- International Fiat: good
- Consult and Conditions CP's: depends on the solvency advocate
- Condo: probably won't vote on unless dropped or perfcon
- Multiplank CP's: fine if you have a solvency advocate for each plank
- CP Perms: can make the CP go away, not sure about it as an advocacy
- K Perms: kind of dumb. Just go for the no link
Mary Chen Paradigm
My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.
WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.
If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.
-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.
-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.
-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.
-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.
-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.
-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.
I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!
Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):
-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.
-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."
-No tag teaming.
-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...
-I don't flow cross-ex so if there's anything important from cross-ex, bring it up in your speeches.
-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.
If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Lisa Duke Paradigm
Marquis Grant Paradigm
I have competed in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years and judged for 5 years (various events). I am a pre-law junior at the University of Georgia with a major in English and minor in Philosophy in the hopes of being a lawyer in the Air Force (JAG).
I enjoy structured, stimulating, and thoughtful debates. As a competitor, I would hope that you care about the reception of your case as much as you care about winning.
Please do not treat debate as a monolith: have fun and push the boundaries. Any “wild” strategy you want to try is welcome and I encourage you to do so. If you are on your third round of the day and are beginning to feel spent, imagine how a judge might feel. Allow me to enjoy your speech fully and try to stray away from pre-made cases that always seem to miss an integral part of your speech--you.
Because of the comment above, I expect debaters to bow heavily to the art of speech. Not only do I want you to be clear, coherent, and concise (they aren’t synonymous, trust me), but I want you to be persuasive. If you give a speech and think to yourself, “I wouldn’t vote for a president if they spoke like that”, then I’m going to have a hard time voting for you as well. I don’t expect you to be prepared for presidency while you’re still in high school, but I expect you to portray/feign the same skill they have: confidence. Speak as fast as you want, but if you haven’t practiced enough in order to guarantee that you are still presenting a thoughtful speech, rethink your strategy.
Claim. Link. Warrant. Impacts. Throughout the entirety of your case, I will always look for these. No single facet is more important than the other, so I expect there to be heavy thought put into these categories. Understand that anyone can read an evidence card and that when you don’t apply links and warrants to your claim, you remove your agency in the matter. Own your case. Your opponent as well as myself are capable of reading your cards, you have the power to make them meaningful to your position.
Framework: If your competing in Lincoln-Douglas, I can not stress the importance of framework debate (unless you have explicitly stated otherwise it being a non-issue).
Philosophy: True to the minor that I am studying, I enjoy philosophy. I would love to see some in your cases, but will be
Codey Hawkins Paradigm
History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.
How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.
Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.
If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.
Jamie Mayhew Paradigm
Miranda Nutt Paradigm
In short: I’m your stereotypical flow judge with no preference on types of argumentation, so long as you extend and weigh it, I’ll evaluate it. With that being said, the second rebuttal must answer at least turns, or Iï¸ will see this as conceded offense for the first team. Iï¸ would prefer that the second rebuttal also answer defensive responses, but it is not a necessity to win my ballot- it will impact your speaker points though. If the second rebuttal does their job and answers the first, the first summary should extend defense, if they do not answer the first rebuttal, the first summary does not have to. If you group arguments in summary and final focus and weigh as often as possible, I’ll be a happy camper.
Roopa Patel Paradigm
I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and PF. Take that for whatever you think it means.
- LD - Value/Value Criterion - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
- PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. I want to see CLEAR evidence clash.
- Speed - I like speed but not spreading as if it is policy. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. I can keep up with the amount of speed you decide to read at, however if I feel that your opponent is at a disadvantage and cannot understand you then I will put my pen down and stop flowing and that will signal you to slow down.
- Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
- Casing - Mostly traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis.
- I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
- Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
- Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
- Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
- Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
- Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
- Questions? - if you have a question ask me.
Gwyn Rush Paradigm
I am a first year out from Columbus High School, currently at Agnes Scott College. I debated four years on the local and national circuit.
- Speed is good with me, as long as it is still clear. If I can't understand it, it only hurts you.
- If something is very important you should slow down and emphasize it just to make sure I get it on my flow. I get a lot but I can't guarantee everything.
- I do not flow crossfire. That means if something happened in crossfire that you think is important to this round then bring it up in a speech.
- If your opponent responds to your arguments, you have to respond to that in order for me to consider it in the round. You can't just keep reiterating your arguments, saying it multiple times doesn't mean I'll ignore their responses.
- No offensive overviews with new material in second rebuttal (basically don't try to put a new contention in second rebuttal).
- Everything important in final focus should also be in summary.
- I will vote off of what is properly extended into final focus.
- Weighing is crucial. If you don't want me to decide what arguments are more important then you need to tell me. Don't get mad at me if you don't weigh and then I decide what arguments are more important.
- Honestly, most of the time I think framework in PF is dumb. However, if you want to run it, I won’t hold it against you.
Speaker Points (a general guide)
- 25: You were either completely incoherent, extremely offensive, or both.
- 26: Your speeches were disorganized, pretty under time, and/or quite unclear.
- 27: Average.
- 28: Generally organized, clear, use up all time.
- 29: Well organized, spoke well, use up all time.
- 30: Amazing organzation, very clear and coherent speaking, use up all time, overall spectacular performance.
- Disclaimer: this is a very rough guide, the reasons the points I give will definitely vary throughout rounds and if I have specific reasons I will try to include in either written or oral critiques.
- I expect all evidence to be properly represented. If you believe your opponents are misrepresenting a piece of evidence, tell me to call it and I will at the end of the round.
- I am fine with aggression just don't be a terrible person.
- If you make any racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory or disrespectful comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach.
Abby Schirmer Paradigm
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-Present)
Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)
Please use email chains. Please add me- email@example.com.
Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.
Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.
K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc (that shit cray). I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.
K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is racist, sexist, homophobic or ablest. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."
CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. I will listen (and most likely vote) on CPs done in either the 1NC or the 2NC. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.
T- I usually view it in an offense/defense type framework but I'm also compelled by reasonability. I think competing interpretations are good but do think that some aff's are reasonably topical. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.
Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Probably Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.
Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason