BAUDL Fall Championship
2018 — San Francisco, CA/US
Tristan Baker Paradigm
Jessica Bantum Paradigm
Kaine Cherry Paradigm
Feel free to debate how ever you want to, just make it interesting although i specialized with critical scholarship I am familiar with the fundamentals of debate across styles . Don’t call me judge,
Speaking: General Clarity over speed paradigm that most people have, It's a good determinate of speaker points and important for effective communication.When you make an argument clearly I'm more likely to follow its development and depending on the how the round goes works well for you. Versus If i miss and important argument and it costs you the round and then you ask "what about x argument " then people are sad.
Style: Is also very important and i think that can become lost in debate rounds, although some people shoot arguments as if they are a machine they still have personalities that I believe should be shown in a debate round. If you are funny, show it, if you can "make asshole work" more power to you, if you are a geek I'll probably get your references, and so on. Style is not mandatory and should come naturally, but if shown will definitely improve your speaker points.
Cross-X: Can be a very useful tool and can be both a fun and entertaining experience for me as a judge and a place for people to express some aspects of "style". Cross-X belongs to the person asking questions, so if it seems like someone isn't asking a question let them ramble it really isn't your concern. Of course there is a threshold that will become really clear, in that i'll probably stop paying attention and start finding something else interesting to pay attention to.
Evidence: Pieces of evidence are like a bullets to a gun. They can be devastating only when aimed properly, I think evidence is a tool to support your arguments and the way you articulate them. So if you extend evidence with little to no explanation to how it functions you are shooting blanks that can probably be easily refuted, evidence comparison is also really important in this regard as it allows you to control the framing of the debate which leads us into. . .
Macro-level issues and Framing: I think these are very important in both debate as they ultimately determine how i look at the flow(s) and situate who is controlling the direction of the debate. So if someone has an overview that contains an impact calculus,framework, "politics" or frontloads an argument on the flow and it doesn't get answered either directly or somewhere else on the flow then it becomes damming to the other team. This is even more essential in the last two speeches that ultimately determine how i should look at the round. Good framing also should happen on the line-by line as well and will also help me write the ballot.
Theory: I don't have a stance on theory as a stand alone argument. It's probably something that should be argued in a CLEAR and COHERENT manner, which means you probably shouldn't speed through your condo bad and agent cp blocks as if you are reading cards, I'll vote on dropped theory arguments as long as there is a clear impact to it when extended. Otherwise it should be developed throughout the debate. General question that should be resolved in theory debate for me is "What does it mean?" i.e If you say best policy option, what does that mean in terms of what a policy option is and how does it work in terms of debate.
Topicality: Its very situational depending on the violation and how the definitions are played out. I think a lot of T interpretations can be contrived especially if they are not grounded in codified law or precedent. Interpretations that come from legal academics serve to help lawyers in the event in which they feel they must argue a certain interpretation in front of a particular judge and may not nesscarly good for debate(although a certain level of spin and framing could connivence me otherwise). Topicality comes down to clash and ground, and is normally resolved by several questions for me; "Is there clash in round?" "What ground does BOTH sides have?" and "How does ground function to create educational debates?" I tend to have a very high threshold for fairness. Just because a K Aff makes a no link argument to you politics disad doesn't mean that its unfair, negative ground isn't something that is so clearly drawn out. I think there are better arguments that can be made in those situations. That being said I am very sympathetic to aft weighing their case against topicality and see k's of topicality as substantial arguments on the flow.
Just saying you are reasonability topical isn't an argument and makes their competing interpretation clams all the more legitimate. Like all things you have to make a warrant to why you are reasonably topical, may it be that you are germane to the resolution or that you still allow for alternative ways for the neg to engage the aft.
Counter Plans, PICs, and DA's: Not really a generic counterplan person, I think counterplans when researched properly and specific to the aff with a good net-benifit can become a good interesting debate that I would love to see. I don't really like silly PICs and think people can make very convincing, smart arguments about how stupid they are,but I'll still vote for them. It's question of how the counterplan competes with the aff and makes better room for theory arguments on the aff. I really don't like the politics DA and generally think the link arguments are contrived,strong attacks on the link story of the DA are very convincing and will probably help you on the CP debate.
"Perfomance": **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_n1FHX3mBw** Just do your thing
K's: I would love seeing a good critique debate more than seeing a bad one that does surface level work. A good K debate includes specific links to the aff that go beyond " you do state action dates bad judge" or "you sed observation= ablest discourse" as it allows affs to use simple questions to make you links seem stupid and their framing arguments stronger. A strong defense of the alternative, and realistic impacts that are explained and benefit the neg. I really like K's that deal with politics and how we formulate political action and agency in relation to institutions or the State, a good framing of the alternative politics and how that politics can function through the debate round and the ballot is very exciting to me, especially with the recent events happening over in Tunisa and Egypt. Affirmatives should engage in a substantive discussion of the alternative and pin the negative down on how the alternative functions in the round. Smart questions and simplification of the alt/ K will probally allow to be more persuasive and stop the k from becoming the blob of shit it normally becomes.
Julia Egan Paradigm
Trinya Lynn Paradigm
Allen Nesbitt Paradigm
Add me to your chain:
I am fine with speed and tag team cx. However, I will not weigh evidence that is read in so fast that it is unintelligible. Speak only as quickly as you can speak clearly. Go extra slow and number your analytics, i type slow! Slow down and distinguish between tags, cards, and analytics -- do NOT spread through taglines -- I cannot type or write as fast as you can speak.
I enjoy debate strategy. I am probably on the more traditional side in that I like old school case and off case args; policy debate about policy. That said, I will consider most any argument so long as it is coherent and well reasoned. I will weigh a kritik that makes solid strategic sense in the round; less so a K that is just meant to confuse or distract. I give weight to solid strategy.
I debated HS in Kansas for four years and these days I own a progressive political consulting firm based in SF and DC and specialized in opposition research (oppo research = writing 1ac and 1nc blocks about political candidates and issues).
Nicolas Pesci Paradigm
Rachel Salisbury Paradigm
David Sorrell Paradigm
Kevin Tan Paradigm
Thomas Trieu Paradigm
Northside College Prep HS 2012
Pomona College 2016
Graduate student in sociology at UC Berkeley
I debated competitively for Northside on the national circuit for 4 years. I have a deep love for this activity and thoroughly enjoy almost every aspect.
My general paradigm is not going to be very different from the standard judge in that I am open to all arguments (barring blatantly ad hominem or offensive per reasonable standards arguments) and will vote for the team that does the better job debating in the round. I read a wide range of arguments in high school from traditional policy affs, cps, and das to affirmatives with no plan texts or neg strategies that used no evidence and I will be a competent judge of any argument that might be introduced in policy debate. That being said - I am new to judging this year so I know very little with regards to the intricacies of this topic or what the "core of the topic" is shaping into. Please debate accordingly.
1. Throughout high school until now I have wavered in my opinion on what is the best for debate from the position that traditional policy debate is exclusionary and unrealistic to the position that non-topical affirmatives are no predictable and that the resolution provides reasonable limits to what arguments can be read. No judge is free of biases but I would say that I am relatively pluralist when it comes to what debate should be and if this is the kind of debate that unfolds I will do my best to evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the round and a well-argued impact calculus in defense of your vision for policy debate.
2. Clarity is very important. I'm of the philosophy that one should spread as if they are just reading aloud normally but much quicker as opposed to some of the strange the ways that people have come to speak. This is just a preference I will do my best to try to understand all speaking styles but there is a natural limit to what I can understand and coherently flow.
3. I am a big proponent of viewing debate as an exercise in storytelling regardless of what arguments you read. This is not in the literal sense and it doesn't mean I want you be poetic. I mean to say that I value 2nr's and 2ar's that tell coherent stories about the reason I am voting for them. This often comes down to things like impact calculus, case specific link arguments, and meta-framing questions.
4. Please be kind to the other team, your partner, me, your coaches, your parents, pets, etc. I think that precision, intensity, and maybe aggression can be integral to debate such as during cross-ex but I think that these qualities tend to be overrepresented in the activity at the cost of basic kindness in debate spaces. Debate is at its best when everyone is comfortable and feels like they belong and behavior that takes away from this kind of debate environment will result in low (potentially very low) speaker points.
Oliver Tripp Paradigm
I was a critical policy debater in college and currently coach policy, parli, and LD at SFSU.
I'm drawn to critical and unconventional arguments. That said, I care more about seeing you debate what you believe in and are passionate about than seeing you craft a case you think will please me. I love critiques, but you need to establish clear, strong links. I love performance, but you need to establish what your in-round performance is.
I vote on the flow unless an argument is made about why I should evaluate the round differently. In other words, I default to being a technical judge but am happy to judge differently if you tell me why I should. Speed is not a problem, just make sure you're enunciating well. I don't protect the flow, please call out any new arguments in the rebuttals.
Please do not ever collapse to theory in front of me - you are capable of running other arguments regardless of the aff, I assure you. For topicality against critical affs: not a compelling voter. I generally believe K affs are good for education, and I like listening to them, so watching a good critique collapse to having to answer topicality for the majority of their speech disappoints me. If the aff isn't topical beyond just not being a fiated policy action, go for it. To summarize: I will vote on dropped theory arguments, but if the neg collapses to theory and/or relies solely on T against a K aff, I will vote on other arguments.
I dock speaker points for being snotty in flex/cross-ex or straight up interrupting your opponent's speech instead of letting them decide if they'll take your question. I don't wanna watch that shit. As long as you're respectful, my speak ranges are generally 27-29.5.
I'm trans so please keep that in mind if trans issues become part of the debate. :^)
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any extra questions after round.