Waters War of Words
2016 — GA/US
Arnesha Benjamin Paradigm
Isaiah Butler Paradigm
Pam Carnes Paradigm
Katie Castro Paradigm
Ken Cavanaugh Paradigm
The overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.
I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.
Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.
I have judged more than 1000 policy rounds, and am a bad judge for PF. I pref logic over persuasion, and the flow over truth. My judge training is antithetical to the purpose of PF.
PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence.
LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault.
tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.
Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)
Rounds on Latin America topic: 8
Aff: 4 ballots
Neg: 4 ballots
Average speaker points this year:
rank 1: 28.38 High (29.1)
rank 2: 27.58
rank 3: 27.32
rank 4: 26.84 Low (26.1)
I despise reading cards after the round. I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.
Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.
The project: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. That being said, I have never been persuaded to vote for a project team. I will listen though.
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I have recently reevaluated my stance on theory. I enjoy good theory debates. I have come to the conclusion that they are exceptionally educational. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.