Clover Hill Groundhog Classic
2020 — Midlothian, VA/US
Sara Anton Paradigm
Caroline Bare Paradigm
Bill Boger Paradigm
Jason Boleman Paradigm
Shannon Castelo Paradigm
I am a high school debate coach with a background primarily in speech where my main strength is in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu)
I prefer debates focused on persuasive delivery that recognize the judge in the room. I lean towards arguments that are not only logical but fluidly delivered with personality ( no robot debaters please!). I prefer direct questioning in crossfire and HATE questioning that bogs down in card sourcing. Empirical arguments need to be coupled with a nod to ethos. I believe strongly that spreading has no place in public forum or traditional lincoln-douglas debate and will weight less heavily arguments that I can't flow (note: This is true where traditional style of debate is the expectation of the competition. I will consider this differently in progressive comps) I want clear signposting and impacts should be made clear with each issue and carried throughout.
Specifically for L-D- I want participants to remember that this activity was originally designed so that arguments could be understood by lay judges so I hate debate that becomes esoteric in delivery and format. I am convinced by arguments that can illustrate clear impacts that the average person can relate to, but that are propped up by cited, current empirical evidence that makes sense. The value needs to carry throughout the debate and connect cleanly to each argument made. I believe all LD debate should have a value. A singular criterion is not necessary in my mind but it is much more difficult to convince me without one. You can lose a L-D debate for me by dropping your value or treating it as an afterthought. For me, the value is the heart of this category of debate. I am okay with counterplans in LD but have no patience for Ks or other "policy" style tactics. I have huge respect for out of the box arguments that are creative ( though not unrealistic or ridiculous) or that ask us to view the world from a unique paradigm or point of view. (i.e. deconstructionist or anti-establishment arguments)
Specifically for PF- I like balanced strength in teams. I want to see that teams have multiple pieces of empirical evidence that support your claims. I dismiss arguments that are held up by a single piece of evidence or evidence source and I consider the use of media outlets as sloppy, lazy research and weak evidence. For PF the crossfire is very important to me. I want to see balanced questioning and answering that is respectful. I don't like debaters who steamroll a crossfire round with circular logic or redundancy. PF teams need to have clear impacts in the final focus. I particularly enjoy debaters who can "break down" seemingly complex arguments to relate to the "lay" person. The skill to do this well shows full understanding of a subject. In PF I have no patience for spreading, Ks, or policy tactics. Also, as in LD, I love the out of the box arguments that ask us to view the question from a new or fresh perspective. If I can find your "pro" or "con" claims in a five minute google search you are not digging deeply enough to make debate interesting.
For both PF and LD I expect clear CLASH. Debaters should be able to manipulate their cases on the fly to create clear clash. I believe it is the job of NEG ( or second speaking team in PF) to do this.
I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Don't cry foul repeatedly about drops ( I have been flowing, I know what has been dropped) and quote the "rules" of debate to me in order to win. I don't give technical wins. Win because of your strength of logic and evidence.
Daniel Cheatham Paradigm
Steven Crisp Paradigm
Mason Davenport Paradigm
James Day Paradigm
Kiko Demetriou Paradigm
Speaks: based on organization and time allocation
Summary: 1. if it's not said in this speech i wont flow it to the FF.
2. Collapse down to fewer contentions, and explain why they drop off the flow (wash, block, etc.), but still go line by line as much as possible.
FF- 1. Give me big picture themes that the round has collapsed to. Not just your voters and their voters, collapse on the round as a whole, big picture.
*I dont flow CX so say it again in speech if its important
** I'm ok with speed, but go easy on me its been a few years
*** I HATE EVIDENCE DEBATES. If there is even in the slightest a voter issue/arg in the round relying on the properly cut evidence, then i will call to see the card. I will treat it as a reverse voting issue if the accusing side is wrong to disincentivize wild accusations.
Christy Ellis Paradigm
Brittney Ingarra Paradigm
Stephen Kindermann Paradigm
DaRon Lightfoot Paradigm
Chyna McCoy Paradigm
Scott McKeag Paradigm
Anand Rao Paradigm
Email chain: email@example.com
LARP - 1
Phil - 2
K - 3
T - 3
Theory - 4
Tricks - 5
I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). My LD experience is limited to the last three years coaching my son.
My average speaks are higher at circuit tournaments (avg 29) than regional (somewhat lower). Clear decision calculus/weighing, and being nice, will earn extra points. I am generally fine with speed, but do have more trouble with spreading in an online debate, particularly if your internet connection is not very strong. If you are unclear I will say ‘clear’ a couple of times - after that, your points will take a hit, and I will definitely miss arguments. Offensive or rude comments will also result in a serious hit to your points, and possibly the loss of a ballot.
role of the ballot is one of comparative worlds
role of the judge is to select the best policy through comparison of policy options
value as morality and standard as util
LARP: Clearly I am most comfortable with a LARP strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. Spell out what the implications are for the policy position you are advocating. LD debates are so short, I think it is better to stick with a CP. If you need the option to kick it, then best to make it dispositional. Do not run conflicting conditional counterplans. I like a good politics disad (as long as there is a clear link story and is unique), and am open to PICs. CPs can be either mutually exclusive or net beneficial. Aff should always use perms to test competition, and I am open to using the perm as a new advocacy (as long as there are not so many that it becomes abusive), so be sure to spell out how you think the perm should be interpreted in your debate. I am also a fan of a good intrinsicness answer- as an additive that would work in the real-world as a test of the link. This does not mean the aff can change their core advocacy- just outline a new action that would be compatible with the plan. The aff should be topical.
Ks: I am not a fan of most K affs, because I find that most do not properly link to the res. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the res, and not just to limit the state and the state is bad, then I am open to it. On the neg, have a clear alt and a link story that is more than state bad. If you are going to answer framework, do that on framework, and not on role of the ballot- they are different. Just because you win one or the other, does not mean that you win both. Do not assume that I have read all of the lit on your K- spell it out and explain connections to your opponent’s position. Only run one K in a debate - more than one is too messy.
Phil: If you are sending me the speech doc, then I am fine with phil and most high theory. I do not require a complete articulation of value/criterion in 1AC for standard phil.
Tricks: No skep triggers- just don’t. Don’t run ridiculous and frivolous a prioris under truth testing.
Truth over tech, though you need tech after the framework debate to decide on the contention level.
Theory: I like T, but if you are going for it, do so because there is clear abuse or potential abuse. I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. I prefer reasonability over tech in theory debates, and I prefer to drop the arg and not the debater (but will if I have to). RVIs as tech are a waste of our time- save them for clear demonstration of abuse. Theory about someone’s physical appearance is offensive and will result in your being dropped. For circuit debate, I am not swayed by spreading theory. My default on disclosure is that the practice to disclose is good, and you should share your case/args in advance (10 mins usually enough), but am unlikely to vote on disclosure unless there is clear abuse. I am okay with condo/dispo CPs, within reason (see above). For voters, fairness generally equals education (might prefer fairness a bit more, but open to hearing the debate). Competing interps.
Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc.
Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.
Howard Rhodes Paradigm
Robert Rumans Paradigm
Clay Shupak Paradigm
Mike Strusky Paradigm
Jennifer Timms Paradigm
William Waddell Paradigm
Former Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debater in the 90s/ 00s.
I coach in a TRADITIONAL circuit.
Speed is fine if taglines are clear. My request is that you spend the time to weigh the impacts and implications of any argument you run. Dropping a spread arg doesn't always mean the opponent wins the round... What I'm saying is that don't waste my time with quick "afterthought" arguments, and then try for a technical win.
I hate whining (fairness arguments). Don't tell me what the rules are- there is a huge discrepancy between rules and norms. I don't buy disclosure theory. Don't run it. You both have infinite time- get over it.
I pay attention to cross-ex. Things said during cross can help and hurt you.
I enjoy narrative cases, if done well.
Be civil and nice. I. CANNOT. STRESS. THIS. ENOUGH.