Keeling Invitational Fall

2019 — Hayward, CA/US

Randy Carver Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kaine Cherry Paradigm

8 rounds


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.

Specific Stuff

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": **** 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.

Have fun!


Jim Dobson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Philip Enguancho Paradigm


Please treat me as the layest of lay judges. Although I've been in the forensics community for a while now, my debate experience is pretty much non-existent. Let's try and fix that!

Few things to consider:

1.) I'm an interp cat so performative arguments and flashy stuff will absolutely make me fall in love with you. If someone goes up there and raps their arguments while their partner beatboxes in the background I will surrender every speaker point I have ever accumulated in my life to y'all.

2.) Gently walk me through the debates! Treat me like a clumsy dog that just gained the ability to comprehend the English language, verbally put a leash on me and give me all the outlines and roadmaps and google earths's's of your speeches. Use any and all opportunities to feed me treats (i.e. tell me why I should vote for you).

3.) Feel free to run whatever type of debates y'all want (topicalidums, krattacks, dish ads, etc). I can't guarantee that I'll be able to understand anythi- every little intricacy thrown out but I'll genuinely try my best to understand. That said, I will undoubtedly gravitate towards simple, effective, and clearly articulated arguments.

4.) I absolutely love learning and (respectfully) getting schooled. Don't be afraid to flex your knowledge and bust out some obscure ish. Obviously it should relate directly to whatever arguments you're making. Or not, whatever... would that be considered off-off-case? is that a thing? help

In all seriousness, this'll be a learning experience for the both of us. All I ask is for everyone involved to be respectful towards your peers and to make the rounds as fun and as educational as possible.

Tim Heisler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Agatha Kuczera Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Andrew Morgan Paradigm

For the most part, I can keep up with speed. I try my best to make my decision off the flow.

Dr. Douglas Mungin Paradigm

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

Caitlin Phalen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Eileen Pippins Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Pablo Ramirez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephen Robertson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Herman Sahi Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Taure Shimp Paradigm


Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis.

Etiquette: I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude comments and nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors. Additionally, tournaments are an academic and professional setting—please treat it as such. When I am at a tournament, I am here in a professional capacity and will not engage with students who become argumentative, aggressive, or accusatory.


In IPDA: The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitional issues when warranted. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.

In NFA-LD: Please set up a room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. I need taglines to be slow and clear. However, I am able to keep up with a little more speed in this event if I am able to read along. Still--please do not sacrifice clarity. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if I am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the NFA-LD rules.

In Parli: I prefer a more conversational pace and do not like spreading in this event. I would rather sufficiently comprehend your analysis and become more educated on the topic even if it means fewer arguments are made. I do not like interjecting to ask you to slow down during the round or say “clear.”

Kritiks: I do see value in the ideas explored by kritiks, but I do not like judging "kritikal" rounds and would advise you not to run one in front of me. If--despite this advice--you choose to run a Kritik (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. Please do not assume that I am familiar with the literature base of any given kritik. If you are unable to articulate the philosophy of the kritik in a way a lay person would understand and you do not identify—in a concrete way—how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.

Rebuttals are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters. I especially appreciate when debaters crystallize their impact calculus during these speeches.


Sit or stand during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you.

Partner communication is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Please do not confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.

Shannan Troxel-Andreas Paradigm

I am primarily an IE judge - but I want to like debate. Help me like debate.

Do this by speaking at a pace I can flow - I want quality arguments over quantity.

Persuade me - don't just state things, convince me.

For team debates, I want to see you working together.

I get that it's important to use your time, but there is no need to repeat on a loop if you have nothing new to say or extend - don't stretch just for the act of hitting the timer.

kevin ozomaro Paradigm

8 rounds

you do you mannnnzzzz