Greenhill Fall Classic
2016 — Addison, TX/US
Sandy Berkowitz Paradigm
Daniel Garrison Paradigm
Shania Hunt Paradigm
Audra Langston Paradigm
I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate.
I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.
If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.
Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.
Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.
Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.
Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."
Framework and Definitions
The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.
Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.
Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.
Leandra Lopez Paradigm
Director of Debate at Ransom Everglades School in Miami, FL
Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years) and then in college at the University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)
The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan.
Critical affirmatives with a plan text are fine.
Truth > tech. There is nothing more persuasive than the truth. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, there still has to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with.
Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument.
The negative should not read more than two conditional positions, and I can be persuaded that even that is too much.
Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better
If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is NOT an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.
Evidence quality over quantity.
It is an uphill battle to persuade me of the following-
-Debate is bad.
-Minorities are incapable of/do not want to do traditional policy debate. This is always an odd one for me because then I have to wonder if I was in an alternate universe those 8 years I debated. Seriously, this argument will offend me and speaker points will reflect.
-Death is good.
-Pragmatism is bad.
-Socialism/Communism is good. No.
Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.
If you have questions, feel free to ask.
Mitali Mathur Paradigm
I debated for Greenhill School for 4 years
I also was a member of USA Debate for a year
I currently attend Georgetown University and coach Greenhill School
- OVERVIEW STUFF:
- I view rounds through a comparative worlds paradigm.
- Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/unnecessarily rude in round or ever.
- Give your opponent a copy of your case if they ask – printed, flashed, e-mailed, or via a viewing laptop - this could affect speaks if your opponent asks and you say no
- THINGS I LIKE:
- when you talk about the topic
- when you make your advocacy clear and aren't shifty
- when you talk about real world issues
- overviews that explain how I should evaluate the round/prioritize issues
- weighing with explanation, not just the jargon of magnitude, probability etc.
- Extensions– I think 1ARs can have a bit more leeway, but make sure warrants and impacts are clear – author names alone don’t cut it
- A good CX. CX is binding and I’ll pay attention.
- THINGS I DISLIKE:
- racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/offensive arguments and comments
- arguments that say any action is permissible
- too many spikes or really long underviews that aren’t related to the topic. If you are aff and concerned about a side bias, write an aff that uses the entire 6 minutes with substantive arguments
- misrepresenting evidence and reading strawperson cards. If there is an evidence ethics challenge, I will read the article and the piece of evidence in question. If you make the challenge, you are staking the round on it.
- Go as fast as you want but don’t sacrifice clarity
- Please slow down for interpretations and advocacy texts
- Slow down for spikes/underview type stuff
I never was a framework debater myself. But, if you are a framework debater, don’t shy away from your strengths in front of me, just be extra clear and do a lot of interaction and weighing if it's a more complex framework and it should be fine.
Totally fine. A framework is just a way to evaluate what impacts matter. Tell me what impacts matter and what piece of offense applies under that.
- I love a well thought out CP
- I'm fine with PICs as well
- When you debate CPs, make at least one cleverly worded perm and explain how the perm functions (solves all offense, mitigates the link to the disad etc.)
- make sure there is real uniqueness!!!!
- specific links based on specific affs will make me like you more
- I prefer specific links over general links that can be re-used
- Make sure you can defend the alternative and can EXPLAIN what it means
- I’m fine if you have a role of the ballot/role of the judge – but if there is a counter ROB/ROJ, do some weighing
- For me, fairness is not a terminal impact, but it is an internal link to other impacts that are important
- There is no “spirit of the interpretation,” there is just the interpretation
- Don’t read stupid theory arguments over the smallest technicalities. I’ll be expressive so you can tell what I consider to be reasonable. I’ll evaluate it, but your opponent won’t have a high threshold answering it.
- T is determined through the plan text.
- A good T argument should have a specific interpretation and carded evidence
- I’ll be impressed if you answer T with specific, carded evidence and do some weighing
Tiana Menon Paradigm
Ryan Nelson Paradigm
Renard Roy Paradigm
Relatively speaking, I am a old school Policy judge-Stock Issues, Slower Presentation (if you are gulping for air, especially the double gulp, you are speaking far too fast) and most importantly Topicality (PLEASE debate the Resolution in its entirety, don't pick one of 2 words and head off to left field). CPs are welcome, Ks not so much (always interesting but MUST relate to the topic and ultimately result in a policy/solution. Closed CX please.