Greenhill Fall Classic
2016 — Addison, TX/US
Varad Agarwala Paradigm
Greenhill School '16
Email Chain: Varad.Agarwala@gmail.com
General Debate Predilections/Requests That You'll Inevitably Ignore
- Theory in LD is beginning to be a non-starter. I like debates about the topic. The stupider your interp the closer I get to completely ignoring it.
- Tech over truth. Notwithstanding, if your “technical concession” took two seconds it probably doesn’t matter.
- I really, really enjoy impact turn debates. They will be rewarded with higher speaks.
- I'm a sucker for the perm double bind
- Clash debates - weigh your impacts! These debates are hard to judge because no one does comparative analysis
- Extra speaks for negs that come up with creative case negs that demonstrate you've done research about the aff
- I hate, hate, hate long overviews. Just do it on the line by line.
- deleting things from the doc is prep time, it's not my fault you can't flow
- max 28 speaks if you don't disclose
Critical Affirmatives/Non-Traditional Affirmatives/Framework/Topicality
I don't care. Do what you want.
Theory (For LD folk)
- The worse the arg the more annoyed I'll be. RVI’s seem silly to me, but that’s also because most theory arguments seem silly to me. I believe that reasonability is underutilized in LD and can be used to beat most theory arguments.
- The 1AR: I don’t think that you have to read theory as a separate off – just read it on the sheet of paper that it applies i.e. condo bad on the counterplan flow.
Disclosure (This is for you, LD people)
Pre-Round Disclosure: The affirmative must tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. This involves (a) disclosing the advocacy text, (b) the advantages. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff." If it is a new plan but the same advantages, the aff must disclose the advantages being read, but does not have to disclose the plan. Same is true of new advantages.
NDCA Wiki Disclosure: Teams must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA Wiki. Failing to do so will make me sad. It will also result in a loss (likely) if the opposing team reads an argument about why you must disclose. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you.
Two caveats to this. (a) Forgetting to disclose one or two positions does not constitute failing to disclose. (b) If you are debating someone with clearly far less experience, reading disclosure theory will just make me sad and make me ignore your argument and likely dock your speaks.
In-Round Evidence Sharing: Use an email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you.
Speaker Point Scale
29.6 - 30: You did everything I could have ever wanted and more; thank you for ending my unending cycle of terrible debates.
29 - 29.5: You'll be in deep elims, there were few techincal mistakes made and I think you'll beat most of the debaters in the pool based on your performance.
28-29: I think you'll probably break. You did very well as a whole, there were a couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.
27-28: You probably won't break and there are larger debate techne issues that need to be resolved.
26-27: Major errors committed, effort questionable.
Below 26: You're bad and you should feel bad.
Clement Agho Otoghile Paradigm
Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].
I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).
My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!
All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.
Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:
1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.
2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.
Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!
Ask any other clarification questions before the round!
Jonathan Alston Paradigm
I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford.
I like many types of arguments, but I like them to be smart.
I don't presume to any side. I listen to student arguments.
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.
Do not spread philosophy. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)
Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.
I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting.
Every argument has a standard, even if it is pre the agreed upon standard in the round. Explain to me why it is important or makes sense. I like smart, substantive arguments.
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe".
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence.
Byron Arthur Paradigm
Mike Bietz Paradigm
Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | email@example.com
Use pocketbox.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts
Jonah Feldman, coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments
I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument
I am primarily interested in voting on high quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...
How should this effect the way I debate?
1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending a lot of different answers to an advantage or offcase argument, pick your spots and lock in.
2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained important components and implications of winning that argument.
His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366
The affirmative probably should be topical.
I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.
I would probably consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over long term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic so much as it is negatives failing to engage the affirmative.
Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.
Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.
Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they are behind on actual issues.
Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, you opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means they can't solve. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.
Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.
- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think its ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.
- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will definitely not end up well for you.
- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.
Some considerations for you:
- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.
- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.
Dylan Cavanaugh Paradigm
Courtney Coffman Paradigm
David Dosch Paradigm
Adegoke Fakorede Paradigm
Chase Hamilton Paradigm
Hunter Harwood Paradigm
Experience - I debated LD for 4 years in high school, 3 on the national circuit. I'm now a Political Science major at the University of North Texas, where I debate policy. I coach at Liberty Christian School and Prosper High School.
Where I've Judged This Season: St. Mark's, UT, Isidore Newman, UH, Strake, The Strake Round Robin, Colleyville Heritage, The Hockaday Women's Round Robin, The Kandi King Round Robin, TFA State, and a lot of locals,
Sidenote beforehand: I would love to sit down with anyone who would like to know what to work on/is confused by the decision after the round. Always feel free to approach me at tournaments and ask me questions, it would make my day.
IF YOU"RE DOING TOC PREFS: I like to judge good K, performance, micropol, and theory/tricks debates. These are the positions that I ran and still run, and the ones that I tend to cut for debaters I coach, so I'm familiar with how they work.
I will vote for any type of argument, at any speed. With that said, here's how to win in front of me:
1. Do phenomenal topic prep: I don't care how you present your arguments to me. V/C frameworks, burden structures, role of the ballot, role of the judge, theoretically justified frameworks, etc., are all valid ways to frame an argument. With that said, however you choose to debate, PLEASE make topical, well fleshed out, well-researched arguments at the contention level. If you win a generic K or frivolous theory argument, you'll win the round, but I'll give you speaks such that you'll wish you had chosen a different, more substantive strategy.
2. Debate about things that matter: I strongly believe that debate is a space that changes the way which we view the world. It is a primarily educational activity, and it influences people to do things with their lives that actively create change. Rounds where debaters discuss actual, real-life issues, and present topic solutions to problems that the resolution presents are the best rounds to adjudicate, and the most fun rounds to participate in.
3. Be clear and concise: I'll say clear as many times as I have to. I don't think it's fair of me as a judge to stop trying to understand you just because I'm having to work a little harder at it. However, you're liable for anything I don't get the first time. If you're trying to extend an argument in the 1AR and I have no idea what you're talking about because the 1AC was 6 minutes of garbled tags and authors, that's on you. However, being clear and concise doesn't just apply to spreading. Word economy and time allocation are super important. One of the biggest pitfalls debaters fall into is reiterating the same argument 10 different times, at various points in time, during their rebuttal, simply to make sure that the judge understands how key of a voting issue it is. Please don't do this. You'll be amazed at how much time you have remaining in your rebuttal if you weigh and do argument interaction concisely, while telling a good ballot story. When you're reading a good novel, the climactic portion of the plot isn't reexplained in every chapter through the resolution.
4. Speaker Points: You'll start at a 28. I give speaks for strategy and how well you debate.
5. Theory Specific Stuff: I ran a lot of theory in high school. Although my views on the subject have changed significantly since then, I understand that theory is the crux of some debaters' strats, and I will vote for pretty much any theory arg, given that it's structured properly. There is one caveat: DO NOT READ WIFI BAD IN FRONT OF ME. This is the only arg I have ever gut checked.
Chetan Hertzig Paradigm
EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York, and have previously been a coach at Sacred Heart and Lexington (both in Massachusetts), as well as at Scarsdale High School in New York. I debated for Lexington from 1994 to 1998. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.
If you're in high school, please address me by my last name (no "Mr." is required).
PRACTICES I WILL REWARD WITH HIGHER SPEAKS:
- Starting speeches slowly and building speed as you go (rather than starting at top speed)
- ENUNCIATING and INFLECTING
- Speaking slower than average circuit speed
- Providing an explicit decision-calculus/voting issues
- Explicitly linking to a standard or ROB in speeches, especially rebuttals
- Telling a clear and coherent ballot story
- Weighing between your extensions and your opponent's (not just giving me two non-clashing sets of extensions)
- Reading a whole res aff that defends the topic as a principle
- Having a layered NC and responsive/specific turns off the aff
- Making topical critical arguments/reading Ks that are grounded in the topic lit
- Comparing evidence and weighing
- Giving structured speeches
- Using good word economy
PRACTICES FOR WHICH I WILL DECREASE SPEAKS:
- Using profanity in the round. I don't care what your purpose is; it's not necessary.
- Using ad homs of any kind against your opponent (e.g., commenting on their race, clothing, or practices as a debater). Find a non-personal way of making the argument.
- Reacting non-verbally when your opponent is speaking (e.g., violently shaking your head, making faces, waving your arms). It's rude, unpersuasive, and unnecessary.
- Indicting or insulting an opponent's team or coach in round (e.g., "It's no surprise [team name] is going for T this round")
- Referring to yourself in the plural (e.g., "we" and "our")
- Referring to your opponent as "you" - talk to me, not them (you can refer to your opponent as "they"/"them" or whatever their preferred gender pronoun is)
- Sitting during CX and/or speeches unless you're physically unable to stand
GENERAL: For the most part, I want to see a substantive round about the topic. My conception of what counts as topical argumentation is based on what's in the topic literature.
*PLEASE READ: If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it. There might be ink on the flow that you're extending, but if you don't do the work of telling me what it means/how it interacts with what your opponent's going for, I'm not going to know what to do with it.
Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I find it interesting that people often ask if I'll say "slow" or "clear," and then proceed to not change their delivery after I do. Here's the deal: I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer.
*PLEASE READ: I would like debaters to allow their opponents to slow or clear them if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.
Theory: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will intervene against theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on theory. I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me.
Framework: If you and your opponent agree on a FW, great. If not, make the FW debate relatively short (i.e., not 4 minutes of a 7 minute speech). Also, please explain the philosophical concepts you're using instead of assuming that I know them. I probably don't.
Policy Arguments: I dislike generic politics DAs and extinction impacts on topics that clearly don't link to them. If you want to run those impacts on a topic about nuclear weapons, go for it. If the topic's about compulsory voting, it's going to take a lot to get me to believe your story. I won't vote for extinction based on a "risk of offense" if your opponent has made excellent defensive answers that demonstrate that your impacts won't happen. I think that lets debaters running terrible arguments get away with not actually debating.
Bostrom: Nope. I will only vote on/for Bostrom if I see absolutely no other way out. Sorry.
Ks and Micropolitical Arguments: I generally prefer TOPICAL critical arguments. I encourage you to talk about issues of race, gender, class, representation, etc., but do so within the confines of the resolution, not in some external method I don't have jurisdiction to evaluate. I prefer Ks with tangible alts (although I'm more okay with reps Ks now than I used to be).
Disclosure Theory: Ugh, spare me. I think plans and specific affs should be disclosed, but I don't really like disclosure theory rounds. I'll vote for this if I think it's won on the flow, but I'm not a huge fan of rounds that come down to this.
Tricks: Shut the front door! Who are you?! (In other words, "no.")
Extensions: I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.
"Flex Prep": Different people use these words to mean different things. I am fine with you asking clarification questions of your opponent during prep time. I am not okay with you ending CX early and taking the rest of the time as prep time.
Other Stuff: Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues.WEIGH. Be nice. And stand up.
To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.
Jacob Koshak Paradigm
Jenn Melin Paradigm
Rodrigo Paramo Paradigm
I debated ld and policy in high school, coach ld at westwood/privately now
past: woodlands, dulles, edgemont)
here are some thoughts i have:
TOC 2018: my first two rounds of this morning have really underscored how badly i need you all to slow down on topicality/theory debates - i have not been at a tournament in weeks/months - this will help us all have better rounds
the phrase "evidence ethics" means something - if someone says it and their opponent clarifies "is this an evidence ethics challenge," i understand this to mean that the debate ends - whoever has made the accusation wins if i believe the evidence ethics violation is correct, they lose if i believe the accused did not commit an evidence ethics violation - i will not independently end the round if the accused does not ask for this - if they do, i am happy to - words matter
slow down on theory - will say slow twice, after that it is on you if i cannot flow it - i will miss your arguments and feel very comfortable disregarding them regardless of whats in the doc.
please dont read false politics disads in front of me i will be angry i keep up with politics i will know if you are lying
i do not think i have ever been convinced by the claim that judges have a jurisdictional constraint - i do not foresee that changing
i am not particularly compelled by the insistence that the negative or affirmative answer t/k first in cx or theory arguments deriving from it
i will not vote for a kritik i do not understand
i have a good ear for when clipping is occurring - if i suspect it is, i will follow along in the speech doc - if i determine i am correct, the person clipping will lose. to be very clear, this does not necessitate the opponent making a clipping accusation - i feel very comfortable making this adjudication on my own.
one notable contradiction in my thinking - i am very receptive to semantics bad claims on t (not into nebel t) but also pretty receptive to text of the interp/text of the rotb/plan flaw args - i generally think that when issues arise in those 3 things, they are a result of students not giving much thought to them which is a shame bc all 3 are pretty important in my view - well crafted interps, as well as cxes that isolate plan flaws/interp issues will be rewarded (this doesnt mean i like /bad/ plan flaw args.............)
if you suspect that i may need to look at interps/counter interps you read, those should be flashed before the speech [likely applies to perms as well]- i will not look at interps that are written down at the end of the round and will just evaluate the t debate based on what i have written on my flow.
just do you i guess, specifics for each event are down below
im down with almost everything - read ahead for specifics
if you are short on time before the round, i suggest you read the FLASHING section - from there the "debate practices" are all probably important as well
the theory vs rotb section is also fairly extensive if that is a clash you are concerned about
I will be frustrated if you walk into round and ask a question that is already answered here, (applies mostly if you are the second flight)
if i have said clear/slow more than 3 times and you have reverted to your lack of clarity you will not get higher than a 27.5 and i will likely miss a lot of your arguments - ask yourself if the lack of clarity is worth the risk of a loss - 27.5
tab judges dont exist
(perfectly "tab" judges are great in theory but its impossible for anyone to be completely tab.
i won't purposely intervene but i dont think its desirable to make myself a blank slate for the purposes of the activity)
this used to be an extensive set of rules please just flash well i have no patience for inefficient flashing
its not prep but if it takes more than 30 seconds it will make me angry
LD: Pref Shortcut (Roughly Speaking)
K debaters: 1
Theory debaters: 1-3 (depending on your strats against the K/ the frivolity of your interps)
Framework debaters: 3-4 (lack of familiarity with much of the literature means i'm always a step behind - high threshold for explanation)
Generic circuit: 1-2
Practices Trigger Warnings
Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.
The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.
This probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - i think they make debate rounds uncomfortable and have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.
This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot
- Clarity is important, and I’ll prompt you if need be. Slow down for tags and emphasize authors.
- debaters blazing through a doc of analytics without pausing can only hurt them, so you should slow down on theory dumps - it's on you if i miss one of your theory blips and i'm not going to call for theory analytics except for the exact text of interps - will shout slow on theory and you should heed that advice
- Additionally, nothing is more impressive than a slow, efficient debater winning the line-by-line against a fast opponent.
- slow down at the very least on the tags, especially when reading dense philosophical positions
- I'll say clear twice - speaks will be deducted after this
- pay attention to non-verbal cues from me
- clarity is important for high speaks but more important than how you sound is making strategic decisions in the 2AR/NR;
- don't go for 6 arguments if one is sufficient to win the round, don't waste time addressing all 4 levels of the debate if you're clearly winning the top 2, don't read unnecessary theory, etc.
- give a strategic and efficient 1AR,
- don't go top speed through the 2NR if you don't have to, a slow mastery of the line-by-line is just as if not more impressive than extending every argument on the flow.
- If any of this is not clear enough for you, feel free to ask before rounds and I'll tell you how my speaks have been distributed at that specific tournament.
- here are my average speaks for the 2016-17 season, do with this what you will
- grapevine: 28
- greenhill: 28.3
- marks: 28.4
- gbx: 28.08
- strake/rr: 28.21
- churchill: 27.98
- debate la: 28.63
- ahwl: 28.48
- emory: 28.22
- berkeley: 28.58
- tfa state: 28.25
- a weird paradigmatic issue that shift from judge to judge - i think i'm a bit more lenient on extensions for the affirmative but there's little leniency on the 2nr - you should be clearly impacting every extension you make when you make it especially if you want me to vote on it
- i don't think you have to extend the plan text explicitly if there is an implicit discussion of the advocacy during things like the extension of solvency, but it certainly will not hurt you
- on the question of theory - similar to how you're expected to extend standards and voters, i do think its important to extend interpretations here, especially in a competing interps debates - i dont know that itll necessarily lose you the round if you dont, but ill be willing to listen to a 2ar story about how your standards arent explicitly impacted back to an interp - keep that in mind
- dont re-read your ac or nc taglines for extensions - bad practice and rarely does this include an explanation of the warrants.
go for it, do it well
have a framework
perms are good, you should have explicit perm texts and you have them written down before the speech starts
(perm texts should be more than "perm do both")
I will not reward a poorly-executed k over other arguments on the flow simply by nature of it being a k. if you’re going to read a k make sure you can explain it, your explanation will always be the most important thing. K’s should have an explicit alternative, though what form that takes is up to the debater reading the criticism.
[The best form of kritik also has a topic-specific link, the more specific the better, please don’t read generic kritiks for the hell of it].
you should substantively engage kritiks when answering them, reading a lot of non-responsive arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped is a bad strategy
ask questions if anything is unclear
im most familiar with literature surrounding identity debates though i also see a fair share of deleuze rounds - again, do with this what you will
go crazy (justify it)
Skep/permissibility/all your tricky args
i'm not the judge for it (unfamiliar with the arguments and skeptical of them before they're read)
i will presume negative if they defend the status quo - if they read a cp or a kritik, then presumption shifts to the affirmative
speech times do not change this
- I default to theory as a question of competing interpretations though I can be persuaded otherwise as long as you clearly warrant/impact out your arguments (this probably means im down with the RVI on c.i. but im very skeptical of the rvi on reasonability (i.e. I assume counter-interps are offensive unless you justify why they're not) )
- I'm more than happy to listen to 6 minutes of theory in the 2nr, just do it well
- Make sure your counter-interps are competitive/that your interps actually exclude the position you're reading them against - low threshold for semantic i meet's on poorly worded interpretations
- time skew?? come on
- Fairness isn’t a voter, it is an internal link - this does not mean i would /never/ vote for fairness claims but i have a very low threshold for reasons education would come first Education /is/ a voter, and it is /always/ a voter - im very skeptical you can win my ballot with "education bad" or "education is not a voter" - your role of the ballot /role of the judge arguments are certainly valuable but its unlikely they change my role as an educator in the debate space.
- you should not just say 'its in your paradigm that fairness isnt a voter', you should explain the reasons that that would be true
- Not the judge for Nebel T
- i will likely be easily compelled by a "debaters should not bracket evidence" argument - i have grown sympathetic to this argument as abuses become increasingly egregious
"Theory vs. RotB" (long, but read this if you're worried about these debates in front of me - also read for generic rotb vs rotb questions)
I often hear debates that center around the question of “theory vs. the kritik”
I think this question largely misses the point on how these positions interact with one another, which I’ll flesh out here
The kritik as an argument is not particularly revolutionary – it merely changes the literature source of “traditional” debate arguments, while doing little to change the form. This means that the question debaters should be asking is not a simple comparative one between theory and the kritik, but one of how theory functions in the debate round at large – “Does the theory debate preclude all substantive debate?”
To this, the answer is simple – no. (Or rather, not /necessarily/)
Debaters regularly say things like “theory is a gateway issue, it controls whether my opponent gets access to their post-fiat offense,” an argument that I think is at best silly.
There are two reasons: 1) it assumes a static conception of what arguments are post vs. pre “fiat,” and 2) it assumes an objective layering to the debate round – in truth, any argument could be the highest layer of the debate, given that they all impact back to a role of the ballot in some manner
While the theory of 4 or 5 years ago certainly functioned as a gateway issue, the world of debate back then saw almost every debate round appeal to the same role of the ballot: “to endorse the debater who did the better debating.” In today’s debate space however, that understanding of theory is largely outdated. Most debate rounds challenge the role of the ballot, meaning that theory has to concurrently shift in order to remain relevant.
I understand RotBs as shaping the debate space in exactly the same way as theory interps (or potentially, theory voters, depending on how they are articulated) do – they frame what debaters must do to win the round (standards/value criterions probably function very similarly but that’s a much more controversial claim)
All of this means that the debater who has initiated the theory debate (at least with me in the back) must either
- impact their standards and voters back to the “new” role of the ballot (especially especially especially when the role of the ballot reconceptualizes what forms of education are valuable in debate), or
- they must read (and justify) their own competitive role of the ballot.
This is not limited to the kritik debate – any role of the ballot will implicitly interact with any theory shell, and all debaters would do well to understand this and use this to their strategic advantage (or preclude their opponent from doing this)
The role of the ballot is nothing new – it’s a weighing mechanism under a new name, yet it somehow poses a unique threat to traditional models of debate.
For too long, debaters have operated under the assumption that all 3 individuals in the room have a singular, and static, understanding of the debate space. When this presumption is proven false, debaters have to justify their assumptions – I don’t think there is an implicit role of the ballot in the debate space, which means all debaters must be ready to justify whatever they assume the RotB is, as well as why they presume that certain arguments (theory for example) should always be evaluated as the top layer of the debate.
Any questions at all, ask before round, and above all, do what you’re most comfortable with, don’t just read something because you think I’ll enjoy it, I’ll enjoy seeing you be good at your specialty infinitely more.
Scott Phillips Paradigm
Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail
Policy Debate Coach- The Meadows School, The University of Michigan
Rounds Judged on the topic- a lot
My Ideal affirmative- 2 well constructed advantages
My Ideal 1NC- 5 off and case
Cliffs Notes-Top 10 Things you should know
1. I vote on arguments commonly considered "bad" frequently because a team mishandles them, it is my belief belief that most bad arguments can be defeated by making a thumbs down motion, so if you fail to meet that minimum threshold I will be qualmless voting against you. The overarching principle of my judging is "least intervention"-Much like Harrison Ford in Ender's Game under no circumstances will I help you with bad arguments, I believe in self help.
2. I vote on kritiks a lot because the team answering them reads a lot of bad generic answers instead of making analytic arguments based on the specific arguments they have made in that debate. To clarify this sentence - what I mean is an analytic based on your 1AC- ie "tradable permits empirically don't cause commodification and extinction since we already have them for SO2". In general I think most debaters have no idea what they are saying when reading a K and that affirmatives SHOULD win about 80-90% of the debates in which the negative goes for one.
3. No plan affs- 100% of the time when I vote against you on framework its because the other team won theory was a trump card over issues like education/K impacts and you didn't advance theory offense for your interpretation. I end up voting for no plan args frequently because the neg collapses/has no idea what to do.
4. Theory needs to come back with a vengeance
A. Entirely plan inclusive counterplans- I have never heard a theory argument to defend them that passes the minimum threshold explained above. That being said, winning a solvency deficit against them is basically impossible.
B. More than 2 conditional counterplans is just you being a chazzer
C. K frameworks/roles of the ballot that stack the deck absurdly are worse than entirely plan inclusive counterplans
D. Reject argument not team produces terrible debates with very bad strategies. Voting on theory doesn't fix this, but it improves it substantially.
5. I believe you have a choice
A. Clearly articulate your ground/say as much in CX
B. Because your position is vague you are susceptible to a reduced credibility modifier that taints many of your arguments. Plan vagueness affects plan solvency, alternative vagueness affects.... etc.
6. IMO there are, in fact, risks of things. Debaters should be aware of this and make arguments about how I should resolve risk. The plan may be popular with 5 people and unpopular with 6, should I place more emphasis on the number of people or maybe are those 5 more important? Very few link cards establish such a clear threshold that you can say with certainty (when contested) yes definite link. (this point is largely irrelevant now as the tides of history have turned and no risk people have been successfully marginalized)
7. I will always defer to debater argument resolution if one side does it and the other doesn't-no matter how bad or illogical I think the argument is. This is to me, the most important part of debate.
8. I try really hard to flow well. Teams who willfully ignore line by line/structure - I will not do work for you to figure things out if the other team does line by line barring some argument why I should.
9. I often call for lots of evidence after a debate, most of the time this is just out of curiosity. When making my decision evidence is only a factor when it is a point of contest or someone has made an argument for why it should be a part of the decision. I am not a judge who reads every card from both sides and makes a decision based on the evidence.
10. Evidence quality in debate is in terminal decline. If you have good evidence and you make an issue of it in the debate (talk about quals, or recency for uniqueness) you will most likely crush.
Making a decision:
Everything is debatable but speech times: The role of the ballot, whether evidence or analytic arguments are more important, is it acceptable for the other team to read off their computers, who gets presumption and why etc. If neither team makes an argument on the issue, the following are my defaults:
1. Evidence and analytic arguments are treated equally- I will look at the total sum of explanation offered for an argument, from any form. So if a well explained analytical will beat a poorly written piece of evidence. If one teams reads qualifications and the other doesn't, the team who read quals will receive a slight bump in the level of quality I assess to their explanation (assuming all other factors are equal). Treating them as equal until told otherwise is my way of encouraging debate.
2. Presumption, in the case of a tie or too close to call resolution of an argument, goes to the team advocating the least change. I would use presumption in the instance where each team had an advocacy and an offensive argument, and each team dropped a terminal defense argument to their own offense such that the net risk in either direction of presented offense was exactly zero. In that instance the "hidden disad" of change makes sense as a decision making tool. In no other circumstance I can think of would I use presumption unless explicitly instructed by the debaters.
3. If an argument is unresolveable (or tough to resolve) I will use a "needs" test- the burden of explanation will be assessed to the team who NEEDS the argument to win. So for example
-on a CP permutation, if the neg would win the debate without the permutation, then the aff needs it to win- so the burden of explanation is on them
-for CP solvency, if the neg would lose if the CP did not solve the case, then the neg needs to win solvency- so the burden of explanation is on them
4. Concession= truth. If you drop epistemology comes first/is a side constraint, then it is. You can drop that framing issue and still win as long as you beat the link (that your epistemology is flawed), but you will not be allowed new answers to the impact. I use a reasonable person standard- if I was unaware that the 1NC presented a epistemology first argument (based on what was said in the 1NC, not my prior knowledge of the negative team), then if the aff says "they didn't say this, therefore our answers aren't new" I would allow it. But remember, everything is debatable. If the 2NR comes back and asserts it was clearly stated when they said XYZ, the aff has to disprove that.
5. The threshold for how good a response to an argument has to be is directly related to the quality of the initial argument. Saying "RANT" is sufficient to beat a lot of voting issues. If the other team answers RANT in their 2NC sever perms are a VI block, and thats all you say, you will be in trouble. Similarly, many counterplans (consult, recommendation, delay, lopez) are easily defeated by theory arguments but almost impossible to beat on substance. A well rounded debater should avoid trying to ice skate uphill.
6. I spend a lot of time on debate. Other than eating and playing video games, basically all of my time is spent cutting cards, coaching, writing and reading about debate. A lot of judges say "I'm not a very good flow". I'm a very good flow, I may even go as far as to say probably one of the best. All that being said, it is very possible that you could say a string of words, or utter a quote from an article I have written that fully conveys your argument to me, but would leave a less experienced/judge with a life with no idea what you were saying/what your argument was. I try to temper this fact by using a "reasonable person" standard for what makes a complete argument. I feel this is essential because otherwise any student who was in my lab, had emailed me a question, or had just read a lot of the 3NR would have an absurdly unfair advantage vs a similarly skilled student. So if I made a joke in lab about saying "purple monkey dishwasher" and that meaning "we do the whole plan minus the reps", so you say that in a debate and expect me to vote on it, I won't. Unless you are debating someone else from the lab who had equal access to that information. Similarly, even if I flowed an argument/got the jist of what you were saying, but feel that the other team is being reasonable when they say your argument was poorly explained/did not constitute an argument I will be open to that and you need to respond.
1. I like fast debate. That being said, some people give fast debate a bad name. You can be fast only after you are clear and efficient. I should be able to understand every word you say, not just the tags. If you are stammering (or displaying other verbal missteps) excessively you are going faster than you are capable of going imo.
2. Points are determined by how well you perform your function, which depends on what speeches you give. A 1AC should be perfectly smooth because you can practice it as much as you want. A 2NC assembled on the fly vs a new case can be excused a few missteps on the other hand. I think auto giving the 1N low points because they could be replaced by a robot in most debates is a bit unfair- a blazing fast 1NC and devastating 1NR can be game changing. That being said, rarely do people perform up to that level.
3. Points are assessed relative to the field in which you are competing. The same speech can be a 29 at a local, but a 27.5 at St Marks.
What is your threshold for T?
The threshold is established by the other teams answers- if they make good defensive arguments and argue reasonability well than my threshold will be high. If they don't it will be very low.
What are you favorite kinds of debate?
Ones in which there are clash, since that is not really a thing anymore its usually impact turn debates- heg bad, de-dev, CO2 ag and warming good- loved to go for these when I debated and love to see them debated now. CO2 ag is the upper limit of stupid I think is acceptable.
Did you run kritiks when you debated?
Not as much as Bricker would want you to believe. My senior year in HS and my senior year in college I went for K's about 30% of the time, in the other years of my debate less than 5%.
Did you ever read a critical aff?
By today's standards no- I always had a plan, though sometimes the advantages were not nuke war.
You bash the politics disad a lot, will you still vote for it?
Yes, almost always because the affirmative never does anything of the things that highlight the problem with politics.
Are you OK with speed?
Yes, if anything I dislike slow debate. However this is a double edged sword- if you do fast debate terribly I will punish you for it.
Is Fem IR beatable?
What race do you play in SC2?
Usually random, but if I pick -zerg.
If you were in Game of Thrones, which house would you belong to?
A note on jumping:
I want to see good debates. I'm not interested in charging you 10 seconds of prep to jump your speeches. If, however, you show total technical incompetence at jumping/severely delay the round your speaks will suffer. A good jump is like a good road map- its not hard, so get it over with quickly.
Standards for sharing should be reciprocal, and as such are established by the team willing to do the least. If Team A doesnt jump speeches as a policy that is fine by me, but then Team B is under no obligation to let Team A see any of their evidence. If Team A doesn't jump analytics, Team B doesn't have to etc.
A note on quality:
I generally believe that there are certain "norms" in debate- don't steal prep time, don't clip cards etc. These norms are not rules, and as such as a judge I don't think its my job to enforce them. In fact, I think it SHOULD be the burden of a good team to be on top of is the other team stealing prep, are they clipping cards etc. Encouraging students to take responsibility for this is the best model imo. However, there are debates where there is a huge mismatch in terms of the quality of the teams involved. I no longer think it reasonable to expect novices entered in their first varsity tournament to check to see if the Baker Award winning team they are debating is stealing prep. I also don't really care to argue with you about whether or not you are stealing prep. So my solution is that for all things that could be considered a violation of good sportsmanship I will severely jack your points if it is a debate where I subjectively decide the other team should not be responsible for checking you.SO
-If I think you are clipping cards/stealing prep/misquoting evidence/lying in cx in the finals of the TOC vs another excellent team I would expect the other team to catch you
-If I think you are clipping cards/stealing prep/misquoting evidence/lying in cx during a preset vs a vastly inferior team I will severely dock your speaker points
Demarcus Powell Paradigm
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm. firstname.lastname@example.org.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE ON YOUR EMAIL CHAIN, this is an activity based on communication, I should not have to look at the speech doc to understand you, I will call for cards after the round only when absolutely necessary. If I can not understand you that is your fault and I wont vote on arguments I do not understand because of your clarity issues.
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years .Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments such as extinction good or oppression good, because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
Chris Randall Paradigm
Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.
T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen. I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.
DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly
CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit
K- I am familiar with most of the k literature
CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at
In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).
First let me explain how to get a Hot L:
So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING
Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation is dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean
Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples
I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc
I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating
Jharick Shields Paradigm
John Sims Paradigm
Carlos Taylor Paradigm
About me: I debated policy and LD in high school and college. I am a Racial realist, voted for Trump, and thrive in capitalism given my finance major.
Pumpkin Spice Latte or Cinnamon almond milk macchiato (Hot of course) is the quickest way to ascertain a 30 or 29.9
Read whatever you want and do whatever you want
Say "and" , "next" or some type of audible indication when ending card and starting a tag
Yes T and Heg DA vs a Non T aff is a viable and winnable strat in front of me. Definitely a lot better than trying to butcher a responsive K you aren't comfortable with
Yes I will understand your craziest pomo aff/K so shoot your shot
Make the debate interesting
Default Tech>truth but open to args that justify the opposite
I mostly judge clash of Civ or K v K debates
Unless you are faster than Markoff or Pappas you wont be too fast
Some have called me a point fairy
Winning that the aff is bad is probably a good idea
Policy-Revised for Harvard
Tech > truth for the most part
The arguments I read when I debated do not dictate my view on debate and instead provides experience and knowledge.
In the past I've read most kinds of arguments and books so I'll probably know what you're saying and can follow along as fast as you want.
I know them and will be annoyed if you read them wrong. If you go for them, you should probably have a clear explanation of the alt by the 2nr (if you have one) and clear link explanation. Usually if you lose framework you lose the debate...PLEASE don't read me Wake's camp backfiles or the 1nc's you stole form BoSu, Mich KM, and other college wiki's that you don't understand
read them, go for them. Have a specific link or good spin
should be competitive. You determine what that means.
A good T debate can be fun...keyword GOOD. If you're gonna read FW just be techy and good enough to out debate the aff. And if you're reading a non-topical Aff you should probably have framework answers memorized so I'm expecting a good debate.
I'm typically a point fairy so if you get low speaks you must have really fucked up!
If you go for aspec you will get a 30!
Troll your way to a 30
Emory 2018 Update: Trump indicts are more dissuasive than persuasive. Debate should center around arguments not whining!
Everything is debatable including whether or not oppression can bare positive results and or is good or bad.
No defaults on theory
Do what ever you want
I'll understand your K better than you
You should probably have a metric/FW to evaluate impacts and guide the hierarchy of arguments
Probably not the best judge for heavy phil framework rounds.
LITERALLY FLASHING ANALYTICS IS NOT A THING LEARN TO FLOW If you ask someone to flash you their overview I will laugh and assume flowing incompetence.
EDIT:Moreover, I am baffled by proposed inability to delete things from a received speech doc that wasn't read. If you were flowing you would know what was read and what wasn't. Requesting a new speech doc after every speech when there wasn't an unreasonable amount of cards skipped. The following quote was awarded with rather high speaks and shall serve as a reasonable response to such request...
"I told you what I didn't read, if you want it deleted do it during your prep"-Danielle Dosch
I wear my feelings and opinions on my face and sleeve as well as verbally sometimes.
There's only so much I can and am willing to type. So I would advise you to just ask me whatever questions you have.
Read and go as fast as you want I only ask that you give me a verbal gesture when transitioning to the next card/argument LITERALLY JUST SAY "AND" OR "NEXT". It makes my flow neater and prevents any mix ups about arguments.
ONLY adapt within your skill level. if you are a Trad debater(please strike me) dont go try reading 30 AC spikes and 1ar Ks...you will fail and probably get your ass kicked. KNOW that I can follow you where ever you decide to take the round. I say this because time and time again kids try to become over night tricks and K debaters and end up loosing bubbles and Elims because they aren't debating in their comfort zone.
Christopher Vincent Paradigm
Assistant Director of Forensics & Debate Louisiana State University
Additional Conflicts: Holy Cross School, Dulles (TX), Brown School (KY), Success Academy (NY)
This is my 14th year in debate. I competed for 4 years in high school, 5 years at the University of Louisville, and was the graduate assistant for the University of Louisville debate team. I have been actively coaching high school LD and Policy for the past 7 years and was previously the Director at Brown and Fern Creek, prior to becoming the Assistant Director at LSU.
TOC 2015 UPDATE: All ethics challenges will be decided through the infamous RuPaul Paradigm: "The Time Has Come for you to Lip Sync for your life."
I view my role as a judge as an educator. While I believe that debaters should shape this activity, I do not believe that judges are or even can be neutral in this process. I will always try to embrace the teachable moment in debate. I debated for 5 years in what the community deemed "performance debate." If you put me in the back of the room you either know me, read this, or a combo of the two. Long story short: Do what you do, be who you are, and defend your actions in the debate.
I evaluate debates holistically, which means I prefer the debate to tell me a story and it requires more than just winning your argument is true. You MUST WIN WHY THAT ARGUMENT MATTERS. I will attempt to evaluate the debate as objectively as possible. I say "as possible" because I do not believe that judges can truly be objective. We are all humans, and we all think and formulate opinions and thoughts. Failure to do comparative analysis in debate will result in messiness, and inevitably some level of judge interventions (which you don't want).
Here are a few of my predispositions coming into the round:
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, OR ABLEIST IN NATURE!!! Depending on the nature of the offense, this may result in an automatic loss!!!
1) Speed- Slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, please don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you.
2) Dropped Arguments- Dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote someone down. Don't expect me to automatically pull the trigger on a dropped argument without you doing the work necessary and giving me an in depth analysis of why that argument shuts down the entire debate. I evaluate debates holistically. =
3) Theory- Theory is not a substantive response to critical positions and arguments. This is not to say that I won't vote for theory, but you must prove ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE. One of the unique aspects of debate, is that it gives us a chance to explore different positions, and to be critically self-reflexive. Thus, my interpretation of the topic may not be the same as yours, and that is okay. Theory seems to limit the liberating and unique educational opportunity this activity provides us.
-I do not believe in neutral education, neutral conceptions of fairness, or even ground, or limits. If you run theory, be ready to defend it. Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it. You should probably read their literature and engage it. I will still stand by this position. If you are not reading the literature then you probably link to their criticism in the first place. Don't be scared, just engage.
4) Critical Arguments- Don't run them just because I am in the back of the room. While I am familiar with a wide range of literature, and while I have coached students with a wide range of literature, I will not be impressed just because you do it too. There are implications to the things we talk about in debate, and I believe that our social location inevitably shape the beliefs and ideologies we hold. If you do not believe that there is a place for performative/critical arguments in debate, and if you believe that social location and subsequent discussions have no place in this space, I am probably not the judge for you.
5) PAPERLESS DEBATE: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer.
Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.
I debated for 5 years at the University of Louisville and engaged exclusively in what the community deemed “performance debate.” I believe that debate is what you make it and you only get out of it what you want and what you put into it. I expect that if you put me in the back of the room you either know me, read this, or it’s a combination of the two. Be who you are and defend your actions in the round. The most important thing you should know about me is that I love debate and I believe that debate is a place where we should exchange ideas, beliefs, and differences. I view my role as a judge as an educator and while I believe that debaters shape the activity through the rounds, I don’t believe judges are neutral in this process. That means I will always attempt to embrace the teachable moment in the debate round when given the opportunity.
I promise I will flow the round but will probably not use the flow the same way you do. I believe that the debate should tell me a story and so I want to know how the arguments interact with one another and how they function. I will not examine arguments as isolated parts of a speech, but instead holistically.
I don’t believe affirmatives have to be topical. They can be, but they don’t have to be. You should just defend your actions.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC IN THEIR NATURE.
Speed: I don’t really like it and I tend to believe that debate is a communicative activity. I am not a robot. I breath, will speak to you if you speak to me, etc. That means that I am a person and I would like for you to engage me as such. In return I will do the same. If you so choose to spew down in front of me, be comfortable with your decision but also be comfortable with my flow being half empty, and my pen that will suddenly stop writing.
PAPERLESS: Prep time ends when the jump drive leaves your computer and is in your opponent's hand.
Finally, make smart arguments, clash with your opponent, and defend what you say. I will do my best to evaluate the debate I am given. While I ideologically believe that identity shapes how we approach debate, and while I debated exclusively in one style, I was trained in traditional and nontraditional debate and so I will attempt to evaluate the debate I am given. That means if I have two right teams in the back of the room, by all means have your plan focus debate, just know where I am coming from.
If you have any other questions just ask!!!