Capitol Debate Vanderbilt

2019 — Nashville, TN/US

Jessica Beckett Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ben Hanson Paradigm

8 rounds

Last Updated for: University of Kentucky 2019

Background: 4 years of PF debate at duPont Manual High School in Louisville, Kentucky. Qualified for TOC my senior year, competed at NSDA 3 times, multiple outround appearances. Currently compete in NFA-LD (1 person policy) at Western Kentucky University.

Current Affiliation:

Past Affiliations: University School (OH), duPont Manual, Ames, Theodore Roosevelt

TL,DR: Tab judge, will vote on anything if it's well explained. I try to be as hands off as possible in the round. Do what you're comfortable doing, but make sure that we're on the same page by the end of the round. I've bolded the important parts of each paragraph to save time if you're reading this right before the round. Feel free to ask specific questions before the round.

Generic:

I try not to intervene unless either (1) one side says something blatantly offensive or (2) both sides did such a poor job in the final speeches on key areas of clash and I have to intervene to decide my ballot. Generally, I will try my best to listen to any argument you feel comfortable reading and defending, but I'm not super well read on some positions so if you're going to run those you might need to slow down and get a bit more deep for me to vote on them. Overall, here's how I feel about debate, regardless of what format I'm judging:

Speed: Go as fast as you want.

Weighing: I evaluate the debate however debaters in round tell me to. I like to see deep internal link and impact debates because I feel like clash there is much easier to understand than clash at the link level of the debate. That being said, whatever the round ends up collapsing to, be prepared to go in depth on that issue, rather than just repeat the same thing over and over again.

Tech v Truth: Tech always comes first, but truth is still important in close debates.

Evidence: Include me on the email chain if there is one (benhanson0806@gmail.com) or give me the speechdrop code. I will call for any evidence that seems sketchy or if a team tells me to. I'm unwilling to call for evidence that isn't warranted well in speeches and will not make your evidence say things you don't say it says.

Speaker Points: I give higher speaks to people who debate the flow the best. I'm not a "speaker point fairy", so don't expect a 30 from me unless you do something miraculous. I don't necessarily have a baseline for speaker points because I think that every round is different.

Theory: I won't say I'm unwilling to vote on potential abuse, but there needs to be well articulated standards for me to vote on it. It's probably an uphill battle for you to win here. I would much rather vote on proven abuse if that's possible.

LD Spec:

1) I have a pretty high threshold to vote on theory debates. I'm most comfortable listening to T, vagueness/spec, and disclosure arguments. Anything beyond this is something i've never run or debated against before, so while I could vote on something else, it's less likely than one of those. Any 1AC or 1NC positions you've read before should be on the wiki, please don't make me vote disclosure.

2) I think philosophy is neat, but I'm not super well versed on it. Framework debates are fine and encouraged if that's your jam, but you might have to do more explaining anything beyond basic util to me. I'd prefer framework disputes be settled by the end of the 1AR if possible.

PF Spec:

1) I'm fine with speed and can flow spreading. However, I'm not a fan of people competing in PF using speed as a way to squeeze 30 paraphrased cards into a speech. If you're going to spread, I prefer that you read full cards. I won't drop or intervene if you go quickly and paraphrase, but it might be hard for me to keep up with tags, author names and dates so make sure as you're super clear on those things.

2) Overviews are alright out of the rebuttal, but not encouraged. I think that far too often people use overviews as an excuse to read more offense out of rebuttal to make up for a lack of defense on case. If you are going to read new offense out of the rebuttal, it needs to be backed up by VERY solid case defense in the latter half of the speech. I will most likely call for your defense cards and if they're crumby, generic cards, I will most likely give the ballot to the team that encouraged clash the most, rather than just making the round a race to the bottom to see who can read the most arguments.

3) I like speeches to respond to what was said in the speech before. That means I like frontlines in second rebuttal, defense in first summary, so on and so forth. If something isn't mentioned in the next speech, I assume it's a drop and am less willing to vote on new articulations of that argument later in the round. Word economy is key.

4) I'm not a big fan of teams handing each other full PDFs instead of cut cards. Citations and quotes in context should be readily available if another team asks to see that evidence. I dislike PDFs because I think it encourages poor research practices and they're harder to analyze in a timely manner. If you don't have cut cards, I'll probably dock your speaks, but I won't evaluate it as a voting issue in the round unless there is a REALLY good argument made against it in the round (see my notes on theory above).

Student Judge Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Paul Narey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gail Nicholas Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Oliver Parker Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Student Vote Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted