Fort Atkinson Forensics Tournament
2019 — Fort Atkinson, WI/US
Urwa Ahmad Paradigm
Josh Baranowski Paradigm
Katie Beverley Paradigm
Carri Brandt Paradigm
Nate Campbell Paradigm
Courtney Cruikshank Paradigm
Usha Datta Paradigm
Burton Davis Paradigm
Kevin Duncan Paradigm
Max Folkman Paradigm
Anmol Gupta Paradigm
TL; DR: I like debate; be nice; WEIGH VOTERS/IMPACTS; read the whole thing because I’m funny and there are 🌟emojis🌟
For me, debate was one of the most important and impactful things I did while I was in high school. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to do debate; debate should be as inclusive as possible.
Fundamentally, this is accomplished through mutual respect between and for competitors and judges. Everyone should feel comfortable debating in front of their opponents, their partner, and the judge, and I try to do my part to facilitate that atmosphere. On the flip side, I have zero tolerance for disrespectful, snide, or patronizing comments, whether that is between students or between students and judges. If you shout at me or your opponent, your speaker points and/or the result of the round will reflect that.
This carries into arguments you might run: don’t run an argument/case just because you think your opponent won’t know how to respond to it. I hate it when people run garbage just because they can (i.e., poorly done meme cases). I’m a flow based judge, but I’ll still tank your speaks for being obscure or esoteric. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On to debate specifics:
To quote Ozan Ergungor--
i begged you
⚡Speed: I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, make sure I can understand you. I’m not going to say “slow down” or throw a chair at you. If you think you’re going too fast, you’re going too fast. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you. Down go your speaker points.
❌🔥: I don’t flow cross-ex (I thought crossfire was a better emoji pair than just two X’s) unless you tell me to. Any arguments need to be included in subsequent speeches (except FF when you’re out of luck. No new arguments).
Rebuttal [🍌] split: The second rebuttal should start to begin to rebuild following the first rebuttal. If you don't, it puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on your partner to rebuild in the summary while also distilling voters and that can get messy.
Summary/Final Focus 🎯: Please, please, please, please, please give me voters and why you win the voters as soon as possible, ideally by the summary. Please do not make your summary a rebuttal reprise or a mini-case. Distill and collapse the debate efficiently and identify where the key points of clash are. As rupi kaur reminds you, WEIGH.
- Give me dates, names, and sources (i.e., Grammy-winning rapper and G.O.A.T. Kendrick Lamar reminds us in 2011 that "Racism is still alive, yellow tapes and colored lines") 🐐
- Paraphrasing is okay, but don’t abuse the bracket. Make sure you are accurately and truthfully representing evidence and not performing debate magic on stats and findings.
- I will only call for a card if it’s being flowed in opposite directions or if either team asks me to (but remember the rules around a formal accusation).
- I won’t take prep when you ask for a card, but I'll start to run it when you've had a chance to read it. Don’t abuse that though, otherwise I’ll run prep and dock your speaker points.
Keep track of your own speech and prep times. I'll keep track too: if you go 30 seconds over the time limit on either, you can get a maximum of 25 speaker points. Don't steal prep either (i.e., saying "end prep" and then proceeding to take 10 more seconds of prep).
I always vote Pro on the second and fourth weekend of the month, and Con on the first and third weekend of the month. Nah I’m just kidding 🐒
Nicole Hampton Paradigm
Becky Hansen Paradigm
Novice Policy Paradigm
Have a clean round and good clash.
Bring a viewing computer for those who are on paper.
Varsity Policy Paradigm
I never debated in high school. I have never been to camp. I exclusively coach novice policy. I believe that debate is for everyone and not just those who can afford computers, camps, and circuit legs. I am morally offended by the fact that debate is about who can be the fastest and the trickiest and not who has the best argument.
Therefore, I want to see stock issues run slowly and politely.
Inherency, harms, solvency, advantages and disadvantages.
I do not want to be on your email chain, I want you to present evidence in round at a speed that I can understand it. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. I will not tell you to slow down 18 times. There is no time built into the round for flashing. I will charge prep until the device leaves the computer.
I hate topicality that is based solely on a back and forth regarding a definition - if they run a ridiculous plan or CP - please call them out on it. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it. I am not interested in hearing your K.
Counter plans can be good. Or they can be ridiculous. I am okay with a reasonable CP. I will drop you for a ridiculous one.
There are some teams on the Wisconsin circuit who no longer believe that the basics of debate matter. I am going to insist that they matter in this round.