Arkansas District Tournament
2020 — US
Trey Berry Paradigm
Hosea Born Paradigm
Neosho '14, UARK '18, HSU '20
Coach: Yerger Middle School, Hope
I debated CX in MO on a traditional circuit, hence I end up judging Public Forum and Student Congress more than anything else. In any event I judge, I look for quality over quantity in arguments. Don't just read cards, be able to explain how the evidence supports your position. Use common sense, analysis, and solid logic. I don't mind spreading as long as it is clear and the arguments are good. You'll rarely win the flow if your response is just that you have a more recent source of evidence, tell me what your evidence proves over your opponent. I'll disclose if both teams agree that it is okay. Ask if you have any questions, I am usually more than happy to answer questions about the round after it is over. As always, take my comments as you wish and listen to your coach.
StuCo- Definitely qualify your sources and embody the delegate you are supposed to be. IMO there is no place for spreading in StuCo, I believe that it is quality focused form of debate in both argumentation and persuasion which means your logic has to be sound and you need to show persuasive qualities in your style. Don't abuse personal privileges, only use in emergencies or double entered. Be active in questioning and attentive through the session. Decorum definitely plays into my perception of you as a delegate when ranking. PO is ranked based on order of the session and not showing bias towards any other delegate.
PF: My pet peeve in PF are roadmaps. There is one flow. Unless it gets wild, don't waste time telling me you are going to cover your opponents points then rebuild your case. Go with quality over quantity and don't drop key points or try bringing up new arguments after GCF. I will roll with the flow of the round. If you bring up framework or burdens make sure you know what you are talking about and don't get trapped in just debating the framework. Default burden is pro must prove the resolution brings about an advantage not seen in SQUO, con must show that the squo is better than affirming the resolution. Default framework is cost/ben analysis. Speed is okay as long as you are clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it. If you have questions ask me before the round starts.
CX: I doubt you'll get me judging this that much, though I prefer the traditional style with case debate and disads/T/CP. Speed is fine as long as you are clear. Go with your normal style in the round, just make any off case arguments specific to the aff, if there is not a strong link you will lose the impact.
World Schools: This is a fairly new field that I am judging. Refer to PF paradigm for stylistics/defaults and if you have any specific questions ask before the start of the round. Default to quality debate and argumentation, have solid logic and watch your fallacies. Do not make the entire debate into a definition debate, too many times I have sat through a debate about the definition of "this house" and it doesn't even matter to the debate. Don't get caught in that trap.
Jillian Brugger Paradigm
Bailey Brumbelow Paradigm
Jenni Lee Buckner Paradigm
Daniel Caudle Paradigm
I have taught communication in some form for 9 years and have coached speech and debate for 5 years.
I have been judging debate for five years in Arkansas as well as Oklahoma, Louisiana, and NSDA National tournament in 2016. I judge an average of 1-3 tournaments a month with each consisting of multiple judged rounds.
I have the least experience with, and prefer not to judge, Policy debate. I am not comfortable with judging rounds involving "spreading" to the point that I can not understand the arguments being presented by the debaters.
When the debate is over I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
I do not disclose the win/loss at the end.
Harrison Cook Paradigm
Experience- I was a debater in High School on the Texas UIL circuit and am now on the Arkansas State University Debate Team. I have competed in LD, Congress, NPDA, and IPDA debate.
Philosophy- I look for a few things in rounds:
1. Clarity - Make it clear to me what you are arguing and how it applies to the resolution/case/etc.
2. Fulfillment of Burdens - In IPDA and LD rounds, I look to make sure that the two parties have fulfilled their burdens as a part of my decision. The burdens I observe are as follows:
a. Affirmative - You have the Burden of Proof. You must make your case and then provide either evidential or prudential evidence as to why your case is superior. Prefer no apriori warrants.
b. Negative - You have the Burden of Clash. You need to make it clear that you are attacking your opponent’s case either directly/CP/etc.
3. Remember to HAVE FUN – Debate is a game, have fun and do your best!
Speed- 9/10 Speed doesn’t bother me much. Make sure to clearly organize and slow down a tad for signposting. I want to make sure I have everything organized in my flow, so I can be as fair as possible.
Speaker Points- I award speaker points using the following rubric:
0-10: You have maybe introduced the topic and then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. I will never give this low of speaker points in a debate round.
10-15: Gave a speech. The organization wasn’t all there, and you didn’t respond to arguments clearly at all.
15-20: Gave a speech and had some organization. Clarity is lacking.
20-25: Gave a good speech with organization. Clear in your responses to your opponent’s argument.
25-30: Excellent speech. Showed a clear understanding of the topic and was very well organized. Good clarity throughout.
Adam Cox Paradigm
Brandy Cunningham Paradigm
James Dabdub Paradigm
Twyla Evans Paradigm
Eric Gamble Paradigm
Congrats to all the NSDA 18 qualifiers !! Hope to see you in Ft Lauderdale!
I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)
ONE DIAMOND COACH:
In eleven years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Worlds School and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals. 2018 will mark the second year we will be attending TOC and the fourth year in a row attending NSDA nats. I have judged; NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats WSD, TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.
This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.
My View on debate:
It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine, indict and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.
I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their social or political commentary.
If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. In fact, there is definitely ample ground for this argumentation in the April 2018 topic. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.
In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."
If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise blatantly discriminatory you will lose the round. Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.
This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.
- Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
- Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
- I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
- No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
- While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
- The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
- Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
- PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
- ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
- Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
- Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
- Shoo fly, you bug me:
- Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
- Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
- Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
- Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.
Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at email@example.com
Colton Gilbert Paradigm
I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge.
Include me on all email chains, please firstname.lastname@example.org
I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole
I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just to be running them, do not run your arguments if you don’t think they can win you the round!
I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim.
Saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me.
My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author’s use.
I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.
I see framework as slightly different from T so I evaluate it differently as well. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.
These debates, for me, generally come down to an issue of fairness. K affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.
Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.
Mike Gray Paradigm
Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.
I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios. I don't need your opponent to tell me not to evaluate an argument if you didn't make an argument. Debate jargon is useful, but it is not some magic trick that replaces argumentation. Don't try to teleport from links to terminal impacts or just call something “bad” and expect me to fill in the blanks for you. That's called intervention.
Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you good. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you good. Winning an argument doesn't make you good. It's that other thing that makes you a good speaker. Do that.
Case: The Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it.
I'll gladly vote on an aff K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it’s better when your opponent can engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.
T: I love a well-run topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I’m completely okay with collapsing to T. I actually think teams should do it more often. It’s a lost art.
K: Yes. Avoid any blatant mis-readings and misapplications (please listen to this... please). You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was not intended. Lucky for you, there’s plenty of theory out there that can be applied in a variety of ways.
DA/CP/Condi: structure, structure, structure.
My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.
Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself (accurately), I am totally comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. Some of you can go faster that that; some of you think you can go faster than that. 325wpm is probably actually much faster than you think it is. I’ve rarely seen a need for anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That said, if you’re one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate.
And that’s the thing for me. Be CLEAR. If your speed compromises your clarity, you’re doing it wrong.
If I or your opponent calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, it will influence your speaker points. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request like "clear." I will vote on a speed K... IF it links. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair." If you can’t engage the 1ac, you’ve got all that time to shell out a good K. There’s usually two of you. Shouldn’t be a problem.
Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact analysis at the bottom.
Time, Timers, & Beeps: Thanks and stuff off time – quickly. I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. Look... just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.
At the end of the day, debate is an educational game. Education does not have to be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and competitive and you'll receive what you earn.
Brandon Greenlee Paradigm
Briana Griffin Paradigm
Casey Griffith Paradigm
Thomas Guarino Paradigm
I am a student at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville and I study French, Political Science, Japanese, and English. I debated for three years in high school and have competed both regionally and nationally. I mainly have done Public Forum and Congressional debate; however, I have also competed in policy and Lincoln-Douglas and I am familiar with the styles. So you know, how I view the round is that I separate it into two parts, speaking and argumentation. SO, with that said...
Rhetoric and speaking style are imperative to any debate round. How you say what you say is just as important as what you are saying. Remember, the point is to convince me what you say is correct and matters, so don't just spew information, persuade me. Also important, I can handle speed to a point: if you are either too fast or unclear for me I will make it very clear in the round. Look for the signs, my body language will indicate how I feel about your speaking, not your arguments. Also, be sure to provide a clear roadmap before every speech and signpost along the way. I need you to let me know where to flow things or they might not end up where you want and end up not being evaluated.
I expect complete arguments, that means claims, warrants, and impacts. If you lack any aspect of an argument, I will not evaluate it. I will not take shadow extensions, if you want an argument extended you better put some time and effort into it and let me know what it means and is, because, if it's important enough for me to keep flowing it's important enough for you to extend fully.
As for types of arguments, anything goes - theory, kritiks, topicality, framework, etc; bring it on, I love fresh, new, and varied arguments. Please try and avoid generics, generally the more unique and novel an argument is the more interesting and thus more convincing it is. I will do all I can to remove any personal preconceptions, biases, or external knowledge, so that what is said in the round I will for the most part take at face value. Furthermore, if a point goes uncontested and extended throughout the round I will assume it to be true (however if it is dropped, it falls off of my flow and I will not allow you to pick it up thereafter so don't forget to extend). In the end I vote off of the flow and what is on it, so, make sure I'm getting what you want me to get onto my flow.
Other Important Notes
Particularly those of you who care about speaker points, know that your evaluation begins the instant you enter the debate space. Keep your etiquette in mind in how you interact with your partner - if applicable - your opponent, and me. I'm rather traditional when it comes to formality so I would appreciate the usage of common courtesy - e.g. introductions when entering the space, shaking hands before and after round, etc. - so please do keep that in mind.
Have good recent evidence. I reserve the right to evaluate any card after the round I find questionable and heavily frown upon practices such as power tagging and card clipping. I also take evidence violations very seriously, make sure you have complete citations and you are not misrepresenting evidence.
Be polite. I know we're all passionate people with a strong desire to win, that's no excuse to be rude. Know the fine line between aggression and assertiveness as well as that between passion and arrogance/rudeness.
Don't violate the rules of each style and know what each one is about - e.g. public forum no plans and debate centered on the merits of the resolution, L.D. ought to center on value debate based on a framework, CX has some course of action taken under the umbrella of the resolution.
Timers, I want them going on both sides for every speech/questioning period. For prep, don't tell me how much you're using, just tell me when you start and stop. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times. I'm good with flex prep.
Cross examination, do not look at your opponent, do not look down: look at the judge. As well, always stand in any questioning period - the only exception is grand cross fire for public forum.
I DO NOT want to be part of any email chain or flash exchange. Debate is about how well you oratorically persuade and argue. I do not want to read your case and points, I want to hear them.
Most importantly, have fun and try to learn!!! Never miss the chance to grow as a person and try to take something from each round.
Kohl Harrison Paradigm
Laura Hicks Paradigm
I'm a parent judge but with experience previously judging public forum. I like rounds that don't get too technical but I'm open minded and willing to vote on most arguments. Make sure your arguments aren't offensive and you explain them well. I like to have clear 'voting issues' in the final focus that make it easy for me to write my ballot.
Lindsey Holliman Paradigm
Grant Holliman Paradigm
Lawson Hudson Paradigm
Put me on your email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com
TLDR: do what you want to do and do it well. Let me know if you have any questions before the round and I will be happy to answer them.
Overview: I don't have a major preference for the style of debate that you do. While I have mainly done critical debate in high school and college, I have also read soft-left affs and disads. You should read what you're good at rather than trying to conform to a style of debate that you aren't good at. I have done some research on both the policy and ld topic so I have a general grasp on things being read. However, if you are going to be using a bunch of legal/technical terms in the context of the topic you may need to flesh out what they mean. With that being said, you have the responsibility to explain your arguments to me and why they are important.
This is what I have devoted the majority of my time to as both a debater and judge. I have a general grasp of most of the lit base and if I haven't read an argument I have most likely debated it/talked through it with members of my debate team. With that being said there are a few issues I have with a way a lot of teams in high school go for the K. I think far too many teams fail to have links specific to the aff and have terrible explanations of the alt which make it an uphill battle for the negative. Good alt explanation, framing arguments, and link explanation go a long way in making me vote negative on a k. This also applies for DA/CP's.
If you are going to be going for cp's and da's make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a strong link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.
I will vote on T or FW arguments. I think teams underutilize t way too much and especially when the 1ar is not very responsive on t, more teams should feel comfortable going for it. I don't lean any one way in framework debates typically but I think that arguments about clash and advocacy are better in front of me than procedural fairness.
go for it. you should usually have a method/defend a shift from the status quo or have a reason why doing so is bad. in most cases defending that method in the context of the resolution makes it much easier to answer fairness/clash arguments on framework. with that being said, you can still win without doing this but you need to explain what your model of debate looks like or have an impact turn to their model.
I think there are ways that negative teams can engage k/performance affs besides reading framework but this is much easier when the debate is centered on the resolution. I think when this fails to happen, framework becomes more convincing. However, I can be persuaded/convinced that the resolution doesn't matter/shouldn't be discussed but the threshold for those arguments are higher.
While I have done LD, I have done exclusively LD so I'm not familiar with some of the more traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but some of the theory arguments that I have seen in LD I have not been a fan of. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than you extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Do with that as you wish. I definitely lean progressive > traditional in terms of style of debate but if you happen to have me and you are a traditional debater don't try toprogressive overly conform to a style of debate you aren't comfortable with. I'd much rather see you do what you do best. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear but make sure to be considerate to your opponents. Tricks/Spikes are for kids and underviews don't make sense most of the time. Give a 1ac instead of reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content.
Christian Huggins Paradigm
I'm fine with most debate styles and strategies. I am however deaf in one ear, which hinders my ability to understand extremely fast talking - spreading. My qualifications are 2 years of LD in high school, occasional other types of debate, and I'm currently on the debate team at Arkansas State University for IPDA and Parli.
I do however have a couple of problems with certain arguments when it comes to LD:
If you read theory, it should be for actual reasons rather than just to steal time.
In regards to anything else, just sign post and be clear.
Any other forms of debate:
IPDA - Just run what you think is good.
Policy - You probably don't want me as a CX judge because of my hearing ability.
PF - Is this a thing still??
In conclusion, I want the round to be both fun and educating.
Angela Knight Paradigm
Daniel Koster Paradigm
Dustin Lauderdale Paradigm
Graduated from Cabot
ATU class of 23’
I’m really okay with any arguments, but they have to be complete, I won’t finish your arguments for you, nor will I make assumptions about how a piece of evidence links. Also specifically in LD you need to have your value and VC connect to your case, I’ve learned from experience, and from watching rounds that if you aren’t careful you can forget about them easily, while I don't think you HAVE to have a v and vc I do think that you should have some framing, like an ROB or something, if not a value and vc.
Spreading is fine as long as I have the evidence to read. If you can’t get through your speech without spreading, but you aren’t clear, maybe cut it down a little bit.
If there is an email chain I would like to be on it email@example.com
Oussama Makhoul Paradigm
Colte Mosher Paradigm
Keeton Orrell Paradigm
Sean Petersen Paradigm
General Debate Paradigm:
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run topicality in a LD case it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and conncetion with your judge. Spreading harms or elimiates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading only but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.
I beleive in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, reguardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.
Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasuive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
A word about style within the round:
Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
Running Logical Fallacies are strongly discouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove, they lose.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
Lauren Porter Paradigm
Joshua Rine Paradigm
Somer Shannon Paradigm
Jessica Skordal Paradigm
Bentonville High School Debate Coach
1st Year Debate coach
This is my first year on the debate circuit as a coach, however I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech world for 15+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Make clear arguments and focus on line by line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team that line by line disputed.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line by line analysis. Organization is key to keep the flow tidy as well as to maintain clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
Joshua Slocum Paradigm
I debated in LD, PF, and Congress at Bentonville HS for 3 years before coming to Missouri State where I'm debating primarily in open CX.
I would like to be on the email chain if it exists, firstname.lastname@example.org
My intention is to judge debates with as little intervention as possible. Maybe this goes without being said but I hope that competitors try to make this easier on me by resolving outstanding arguments, being articulate, etc. I generally believe that debate is a place to challenge conventional thinking so I’ll flow anything but, on the other hand, it will not take much to convince me that arguments such as “structural violence good” are violent in themselves.
I debate mostly policy arguments with the occasional cap K so my fluency in that realm is a little lower, however, that should not preclude you from running a K, be it on the aff or neg, because I’m nonetheless interested in hearing critical arguments.
I believe that any argument should be able to be ran but burdens of proof for various arguments are subject to change.
I believe that most arguments can be ran but the threshold for various arguments will change based on what the argument is. Debaters should practice good debate norms and challenge them accordingly. I vote aff if they can prove the advocacy is better than the status quo/negative advocacy and vote neg if not. I’m not familiar with all Ks but please feel free to run them, explain them well. Debaters should be timely in sending docs, starting cross, ending cross, etc.
Case and Advantages/Disads
There should be a coherent story to each advantage/disad. Answering these arguments should entail being answered from various angles e.g. on uniqueness, link, etc. I also like when there’s offense on the flow too.
I generally think too much attention is paid to the impact level and not enough on the link level. I notice a lot of links are never contested despite them being sketchy/probably not true and I can’t evaluate links as sketchy unless one of the competitors tells me to. Impact D is rarely terminal but solvency, no link arguments could be.
I generally believe that the affirmative does not have to be the best version of the aff that it can be (not that it shouldn’t be) but that it is a better idea than the status quo/negative advocacy. Though, I’m definitely willing to listen to arguments that claim the 1AC should be the best version of the 1AC that it could be and that rigorous tests of competition are good.
Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with the affirmative; only having textual competition doesn’t make much sense to me and I don’t see why perms wouldn’t effectively answer these arguments. That being said, perms should obviously not be the only answer to these kinds of CPs but it’ll do more than it will with functionally competitive CPs. Winning CPs means there’s a clear net benefit and that the impact of the net benefit outweighs any solvency deficient of the CP, if any.
I'll judge kick under these conditions 1.) The neg tells me to and 2.) The affirmative doesn’t make a good argument to not do it.
I think CPs should be more-or-less as specific as the 1AC advocacy, though that is not a necessity. The downside to being vague is that I’ll allow more room for the aff to interpret what the CP means.
Speeding through theory dumps means I’ll probably miss something so take precaution if you’re considering that.
I'll listen to any theory arg
I assume dropping the arg not the team, arguments for dropping the team have a bigger burden to overcome but I’m not unwilling to vote that way.
I’m not a big fan of voting on theory but I’ll do it.
In the case that a policy aff is facing T, I fall in the group that believes the affirmative does not have to provide the best definition of the topic but rather that the affirmative should just have to provide a good interp. This doesn’t mean that the neg will definitively lose T but that they have more of a burden to prove that they’ve materially lost something, be it ground, fairness, education, etc., and that what they’ve lost is noteworthy.
T arguments made in the block and kicked in the 2NR could maybe justify an RVI. Otherwise, a reverse-RVI to counter the original RVI might be more persuasive.
Framework is most persuasive when read versus a not-at-all-topical K affirmative and (generally) becomes less persuasive the more topical the aff is. Framework is also more persuasive versus high theory Ks as opposed to something like cap/security and I’d prefer substantive answers to the case. This doesn’t necessarily mean that I will not vote for framework versus a K that’s in the direction of the topic and I do not think that framework arguments are automatically violent or destroy the aff’s advocacy and conversely, it could be important to question the affirmative’s relationship with the topic. To win framework, negative teams should have well-developed impacts that clearly implicate the negative’s ability to do something integral, be it running particular arguments or their ability to learn, engage in fair debate, etc.
As I said earlier, there are numerous Ks that I’m not familiar with. I don’t think competitors running Ks should assume that either me or their opponents know what the K is about, and it should be adequately explained throughout the round with clear implications and a thesis that their opponents can engage with. The reason for this is that I don’t believe that running arguments for the purpose of being exclusionary is a good model of debate to follow and instances where this happens may very well affect how I decide the round if the opponents are persuasive enough.
I’m not opposed to teams running Ks, I just don’t read the lit.
Link debate should be given emphasis in K rounds, I reward debaters that will provide thoughtful analytics as to how they don’t link/how the opponent does link. The more specific an alt is, the more persuasive it can be. When the alt is vague, as with CPs, I typically allow the aff more room to interpret what it means.
Blatantly untopical K affirmatives have a pretty big burden to overcome and will leave me susceptible to voting on framework/T. I prefer K affirmatives that have at least some inroad to the topic, be it minimal. This doesn't mean that I will not vote for a blatantly untopical affirmative if they can persuade me that their method of debate is somehow better than the option(s) that their opponents provide.
I’ve not judged any performance rounds but I’ve been in a few. I’m certainly willing to evaluate performance but I believe the competitor doing the performance should implicate or explain the performance in some capacity (unless that’s also part of the performance, of course). If the performance calls for it, then I won’t flow because paying attention to a poem/song/display oftentimes generates more meaning than translating it to the paper in shorthand.
Framework arguments are one way to answer performance but you’ll have to put some work in to it. A team that is successful in winning a framework argument will effectively indicate what the best model for debate is and clearly explain how that looks when contextualized to the round.
CX: Speed is fine.
LD: Since one of the appeals of LD is that it's not CX, speed is fine insofar that both competitors are okay with it. Better debaters should be able to sacrifice speed and still win. This way, the debate can be educational for both parties.
PF: It's fine to speak faster than a conversational speed but you should not spread.
I give my RFDs by formulating two scenarios: one where the aff wins and one where the neg wins. I choose whichever one I have to do less work for. Feel free to ask questions after the debate, I’d love to answer them (time permitting). Asking accusatory questions will result in defensive and unsatisfying answers, but answers nonetheless.
I don't care if you swear, vape, stand or sit, etc. However, competitors should not break any rules that the tournament and/or host sets forth and I won’t feel particularly obligated to defend competitors in such instances where rules are broken. I do care if competitors are being mean to their opponents, even if they deserve it.
Competitors should be timely in having docs sent, starting cross after speeches, starting prep after speeches, etc. When the cross timer goes off, the answer should be promptly finished. The advantage to this is that I don’t consider sending docs as prep.
Meeka Smith Paradigm
Kim Stanley Paradigm
Randall Steele Paradigm
Eli Stroud Paradigm
Dawn Tucker Paradigm
*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.
*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers).
*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you.
*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash not the attitude
*If you provide a weighing mechanism or framework PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until the final focus.
*In Public Forum, please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended.
*In Congressional Debate - please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as arguments for the side you are supporting.
Kevin Turner Paradigm
I’m a previous Debate and Forensics Student turned Coach. I have 5 years of Experience. My biggest take away from being a student was to judge everyone fairly. I walk into a room and leave my personal opinions at the door.
I will judge based on the Case, Clash, and Speaking Capabilities. I take into account Weighing Mechanisms, Criteria, etc. I Don’t Disclose, but I do write critiques on the ballot, and I’ll never leave one blank.
One thing I will count off for is Spreading. If I can’t keep up with you then I understand why your opponent wouldn’t be able to.
I like it when you speak to me, rather than just read the case. I also like when you explain your points and reasoning with me. Act as if i know nothing on the subject.
I do allow off the clock road maps, but voters should be kept in your final speech if you're providing anything.
Brandon Turner Paradigm
Graeme Wall Paradigm
Affiliation and Big Picture:
I debated three years for Bentonville HS, now debate for Oklahoma.
I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.
Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.
Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.
I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.
Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.
K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.
DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.
Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.
Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.
Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is email@example.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.
Monica Wiederkehr Paradigm
Matt Williams Paradigm
Ian Wren Paradigm
Matt Young Paradigm
I determine winners by their use of evidence, argumentation, presentation, and language skills. I do not like off-case arguments, and I want some clash. Debate is a speaking event, so I should be able to follow what you say. If I have to rely on documentation that you send me, then I will evaluate your case in my role as a composition instructor and I will still determine the winner according to the verbal arguments.
I do not disclose win/loss at the end.
NSDA Adjudicating Speech & Debate and Cultural Competence certified.
I have taught ELA at the high school and college level with an emphasis on writing for 15 years. 5 of those years have focused on persuasive writing. This is my first year to coach speech and debate.
I have the most experience with IPDA, LD, and BQ debates, but I have little or no experience with policy debates, Congress, World School, or other competitions that follow rules of order.
I average judging multiple rounds at 1 tournament a month.