Young Lawyers

2019 — Salt Lake City, UT/US

Vivek Anandh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shannon Blackham Paradigm

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand util.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

Molly Brunyer Paradigm

5 rounds

I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for three years and counting.

I have Debate a lot of different perspectives and have voted on everything, including presumption on AFF. (That was a weird round)

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious.

I evaluate on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point.

Peter Chase Paradigm

5 rounds

Not Submitted

SV Clark Paradigm

Not Submitted

Max Dayton Paradigm

Hello! My name is Maximus, call me Max for short please.

I graduated from Sky View High School this year where I competed in Debate for 1.5 years doing PF. I now work as a Freelance Web Developer in Logan and I'm a college student majoring in Computer Science.

I'm fine with spreading, just slow down for taglines and other important information.

I really like impact calc.

Steven Doctorman Paradigm

Steven Doctorman

Rowland Hall '20

JHU '24

Put me on the chain:

Do what you do best. I will try to avoid letting my predispositions influence my decision.

My paradigm should be pretty similar to: Mike Shackelford, David Bernstein, John Shackelford, Emily Gordon, Ian Beier, Chris Parades, Sydney Young, Adrian Gushin, and Ben Amiel.

Top Level

Debate is a game.

Tech>Truth, but it's easier to debate with true arguments and well-warranted cards.

Literature determines fairness.

The more specific, the better.

Defense is undervalued.

Debate should be more off the flow than computers.

Policy Affs:

I reward innovative plans - the smartest affs are predicated on mechanism, not impact.

Relying solely on framing contentions requires nuance. I will not automatically reject existential impacts if you read Kessler '08. You should outline why the neg's arguments uniquely link to your framing. Specific impact Ks or framing arguments (ie based in unique literature like a policy setcol aff) are great.

2NRs/2ARs shouldn't forget about the case debate. Framing the way in which case interacts with neg offense makes my job much easier.


Limits should be based in a concrete caselist of legitimate potential cases.

Creative aff mechanisms should be rewarded, not excluded arbitrarily.

Predictable limits matter more than limits solely for the sake of limits.

I am not very persuaded by topic education impacts.

No Plan/K Affs


I think debate is a game, but can be persuaded that it also impacts our subject formation. I think most K teams read K Affs for the competitive benefits, but I don't think that automatically means I should reject them for a fairness impact.

Affirmatives should try to be related to the resolution in some way. Teams should articulate and defend specific reasons why they can't/shouldn't defend the resolution. "The USFG's bad" or "the system sucks" is not a compelling warrant. You should win your model of debate is superior. I prefer debates about the structures of debate, not the individual identities within debate.

I love K Affs that lean on reasonable counterinterps couched in nuanced DA analysis opposed to affs that impact turn everything. Redefining the words in the resolution to contextualize your counterinterp certainly helps to mitigate limits or predictability offense on framework.

The best 2ARs vs framework are the ones that quote the 2NR on specific issues to prove your links/impacts. Please don't read generic 2AR blocks in front of me.

No plantext, no perm vs Ks.

I think root cause or "we access their offense" arguments v Ks should be specific to the K and grounded in relevant examples.


I will not automatically grant you that fairness is an impact. You should articulate reasons why preserving fairness is good and outweighs their offense beyond asserting "debate is good." That being said, I am very willing to vote on fairness impacts and think it's strategic to go for it. You should articulate specific ground loss/affs that their interp allows that unlimited the topic.

Clash impacts are great - specific examples for why the skills we inculcate matter for the outside world is even better. I think iterative testing is valuable; my ballot depends on how you articulate the impact to it and mitigate the aff accessing it.

I tend to believe framework impacts are linear, so you should do some work explaining exactly why their counterinterp breaks the game of debate.

I am not particularly persuaded by dogmatism or small school impacts.

I think identity militarization impact should be used if applicable. I can easily be persuaded that making debate a forum on the identities of participants is not hot for the community.

K v K debate is valuable, especially if your K is specifically contextualized to the 1AC. A well debated Cap or Setcol K is sometimes better than framework, especially if the 2AC blows it off. Don't be afraid to dust off your backfiles and read that one weird yet specific K you have; just be sure to explain it thoroughly.

I tend to lean neg on PICs v K affs.

I think that Heg/Cap Good DAs are valuable but require more link analysis than just "they said the state is bad!" Impact framing is obviously important but accessing their impacts can mitigate a lot of their offense. Really good quality and recency of evidence helps a ton.


CP legitimacy is determined on a case-by-case basis. Theory interps that are specific to the unique abuse of the CP is more likely to get my ballot than a generic "process CPs bad" block.

Start tech-y perms earlier rather than later. Limited intrinsicness can be good if theoretically defended. Try to flash perm texts as often as possible.

Literature determines predictability. If your super sneaky CP has a ton of authors writing about it, I'm hesitant to exclude it from debates.

Competition debate should be more than just certainty or immediacy.

I don't judge kick by default but the 2NR can easily convince me to, especially if condo has already been established.


No strong opinion for uniqueness or link first.

0 risk is possible, especially if the evidence is called out as atrocious.

Turns case should be specific; carded turns case arguments are even better.

Don't be afraid to read weird or strange new impacts to the DA in the block if they can't be impact turned.

Link defense can be significantly more convincing than impact defense for most DAs.


TL;DR: If you have sufficiently researched the literature behind the critique seriously and have a good contextualized argument for why that lens pertains to the aff, then I am a good judge for you. If you want to be lazy and avoid specific case research so you can brute force ballots with links to fiat/the state, I'm not the best.

I have a familiarity with most critical theory, but would appreciate if you explained your arguments clearly and succinctly. I will not intervene and explain the K to myself if not done in the round.

I shouldn't need a new flow for the overview.

1 off K >>> 10 off with a 2 card K.

Links of omissions are generally bad. I'm fine with generic links in the 1NC, but the block should make a strong effort to explain it in the context of the aff. Quoting or recutting 1AC evidence when doing link analysis is top-tier.

I do not immediately vote aff if they win the framework debate. I don't default to letting the aff weigh the 1AC, but love debates where the 2NR kicks framework and goes for "alt solves the aff" or "the K outweighs."

Your alt should have a specific mechanism and clear explanation throughout the debate. Rejecting the 1AC is a low-tier alt. I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the aff; I don't automatically reject floating PIKs but encourage K teams to make it obvious early-on so there can be clash over whether floating PIKs are good or bad.

I'll have a high threshold for K tricks being "dropped" in the 1AR. If it was a one-sentence blip in the block or implied by weirdly wording arguments, I will typically allow new 2AR answers.

The best 2AR vs the K is one where you explain why the case implicates the K. This doesn't require you going for case outweighs the K every round, but aff teams shouldn't forget about their main source of offense. That being said, affs shouldn't be afraid for going for a straight impact turn of the K backed with a robust framework debate. I am also more receptive to pragmatism arguments or a perm if backed by empirical examples of progress through the state.

Even if the aff loses the framework debate, using the 1AC to defend your epistemology or impact turning their understanding of the world is a very viable aff ballot.


I tend to believe condo is good, but intersections of abuse like perfcon make your argument more persuasive.

Most other theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Going for ASPEC that you hid on T and didn't flash is a surefire way to lose and get your speaks decked.

I think most spec or vagueness arguments are checked by cross ex.

Slow down for long, multi-point theory debates.


Bonus speaker points for strong CX presence or well contextualized humor. Jokes about former RoHo debaters will be rewarded.

+0.2 speak for having a fully open-sourced wiki and telling me you uploaded the round's docs pre-rfd.

Speed should be limited by clarity. Efficiency is sometimes just as important as speed, especially given the tragedy/disaster that is online debate.

I will be extremely hesitant to vote on arguments like death good, Spark, Wipeout, etc. I won't sign the ballot out of the 1NC, but it will be an uphill battle.

No inserting re-highlightings. You gotta read it.

I won't vote on arguments based on events outside of the debate.

Deleting analytics from speech docs is weakness; unless you're only read 1-2 cards in the speech, flash what you read.

Isaac Erickson Paradigm

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources. I need clear sign posting. Support your case.

Rebekah Jeffreys Paradigm

It's your round.

Nicholas Lassen Paradigm

5 rounds

Updated 12/2/2019 please include me on the email chain- you're also welcome to email me for any other questions as well

I am a debated in high school and college and I am the current head coach at Bingham HS in South Jordan, UT. I like most styles of debate i.e. I enjoy a good critical debate as much as I like a good policy debate. I engaged in more traditional styles of debating while competing, but as a coach/mentor I have gravitated towards non-traditional styles of debate. I dislike when people take over their partners cross ex and when people try and take the floor during a cross ex where they are supposed to be answering questions. I believe cross ex is a great place to set up for the arguments you are going to make in your speeches, if you want me to evaluate it, it needs to be in a speech.

Theory - I really enjoy a good topicality debate. However, my expectation for the negative to win is that they can clearly define the impacts of the argument i.e. how has the aff been unfair to you directly, what grounds have been lost, why is your model for education better? I dislike time suck theory that you are never going to go for-i.e. things like incredibly thin pics such as capitalize the L in the word lands and disclosure theory. The important thing to keep in mind is that if you want me to vote on theory, you have to be good at articulating the impacts.

CP's - I enjoy a well articulated counter plan. I believe that counter plans really need to be mutually exclusive either through actor or avoidance of a DA or something or else, otherwise it's really easy to buy the affirmatives claims of the perm. The permutation should be a test of competition towards the counterplan. In the plan v counterplan debate it is important to prove why your side is net beneficial either through some DA story or winning some solvency mitigation towards the aff or the CP.

DA's - it seems like good DA debate is few and far between this year. My expectation on the DA debate is really articulate the link story. I think a lot of generic da's are easy to non/unique out of. As far as the link story goes, I need a good internal link chain. Please make sure that I can see how we get from the aff to point b and then point c.

Politics - I have a strong tendency to default to more recent evidence on politics disads. This can definitely create a research burden but if you want to run politics then you should know that this means that a lot of the time, it boils down to a recency/card quality debate.


Aff - I want to know that your K aff means something. I am much more likely to buy into your criticism if there is some sort of personal connection. If you want to read narratives or engage in performance, that is fine but please justify why that is valid. Make sure you are ready for the framework debate. I need to know why your framework is better for education than the negative or why I should choose to recognize your role of the ballot versus theirs.

Neg - I am open to most K's on the neg. I know it practically impossible to have hyper specific link cards for every aff. But with that in mind, please articulate how the aff links through a thorough analysis. Please make sure that you articulate the alternative well-I want to know what the world of the alternative looks like and what happens when I sign my ballot neg. If I am left confused about what the world of the alt looks like, it will be hard for you to win the debate.

K AFF vs K

The one point I want to make here is that I have a higher threshold for voting on the permutation then i do in a plan v cp debate. I hold the aff to a similar burden as the negative, i would not let them just stand up and coopt your advocacy so i most likely wont let you stand up and just say perm do both and gain 100% access to their advocacy. I want the competing ideologies weighed against each other and to know why your world is "better" then the opposing teams.

Please don't be rude, disrespectful, racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. I will doc your speaks and most likely drop you. It's not welcome in debate or in society overall.

Khristian Owens Paradigm

Not Submitted

sarah ponzurick Paradigm

5 rounds

Not Submitted