Monty Python Invitational
2017 — Norman High School, OK/US
Jeremy Allen Paradigm
Paul Baker Paradigm
Lori Crawford Paradigm
I will hear just about any type of argument as long as you give analytics to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if you just read cards at me. Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.
I am fine with progressive LD, but I would rather PF stay more traditional, other than a bit of speed (a bit-not CX speed). PF does not need to become mini-policy debate. For both LD and PF: ADV, DA, and CP are fine (if rules allow) and T if truly applicable. K belongs with CX and some LD topics, not PF.
Sherri Durica Paradigm
Ian Eastland Paradigm
Marita Ellis Paradigm
Alex Hales Paradigm
Jana Harrison Paradigm
Amber Hurst Paradigm
Sean Mason Paradigm
Jake Mazeitis Paradigm
Brit McCabe Paradigm
Patrick Meirick Paradigm
Ian Mooers Paradigm
Jan Mullan Paradigm
Katie Pruitt Paradigm
I prefer K debate, I like high theory, and I know how to flow T. Policy, in its most traditionally understood form, is not my cup of tea, but it is the majority of what I judge so go figure. I will vote on the team that wins the round- framing is just as important to me as impact calculus. There is not an argument I wont vote on- except for distinctly new arguments in the rebuttals. Spreading is great, just don't get mad if I yell speed- I rarely have to and when I do I HAVE to.
More about me:
My pronouns are they/them- I will give bonus points and maybe candy to teams that ask everyone's pronouns before the round :)
I debated for four years in high school and a little over one in college. I only did LD in HS, and I mostly did K debate once I joined collegiate debate. For the past three summers I've worked at UTNIF- and the majority of my judging experience happened there.
I'm studying Latin American Studies, and LGBTQ studies at the University of Oklahoma. I have a decent understanding of Global economics, current events, and Political Policy in general.
Alan Rowin Paradigm
Brianica Steenbock Paradigm
Robin Stroud Paradigm
Ryan J Swartz Paradigm
Nathan Thompson Paradigm
(there's always a chance I forgot to update here, so check the date on the wiki to make sure this paradigm is current)
Norman HS 14
University of Oklahoma 18
Updated 15 September 2018 sitting in the cafeteria before Greenhill round 1
I debated for Norman High School (OK) for four years, graduating in 2014. I qualified to NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year, breaking twice and placing 24th my junior year. I primarily debated in Oklahoma and did not have the resources to travel. I have worked at the UTNIF LD camp as an instructor in 2015, 2017, and 2018. I like email chains - email@example.com
- Speed is fine. I will clear you twice if I cannot understand you.
- THAT SAID, please do not fly through analytics or theory. I am decent at flowing but hardly amazing; if you hit the jets while reading a bunch of blipping theory args, I am going to get lost and miss stuff on the flow.
- I only vote on stuff I've successfully flowed.
- Indicate where your cards and arguments begin and end and slow down for authors and tags.
- Value and criterion are not necessary so long as you give me a way to decide the ballot.
- Label your framework arguments as what they are - I don't like tricky preempts or prestandards that become more than what they were in the constructive.
- I default to competing interps, although I find I've gotten friendlier to reasonability args over the years.
- I am probably not the judge to read a half-dozen theory shells in front of - you can do it if you think it's strategic or (obviously) to check abuse, but know that I might not like it if you overdo it.
- You must have absolute clarity on what your interpretation is, especially if the text that you give your opponent is different than the one you read in round.
- I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.
- I do not know what Nebel T is and am not about to learn now. If you read anything like that, don't expect me to know any overly-specific jargon.
- I will evaluate RVIs like anything else.
- I will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
- The RVI needs offense back to a counter-interp.
- CX checks abuse!
- CX checks abuse!
- CX checks abuse!
- That said, I'm not flowing CX, so don't lie about what's happening there after the fact...
- Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
- I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.
- Flex prep is fine as long as it's agreed to by both debaters.
- I am not opposed to Ks, but I'm not super well-read on the literature base; make sure you're clearly explaining what your K means and does. Remember that there are scholars who study some of these K authors for literal decades to understand them properly; you can at least give a simplified explanation here. None of us are experts.
- Make sure your alt doesn't suck. I am not enthusiastic about voting on vague K alts that you can't explain to any level of detail.
- Have clear tags.
- Your K should still link to an ethical framework.
- New evidence should only respond directly to an objection to the original argument - do not post-date the original card and do not read new offense.
- Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.
- Give overviews in 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.
How to Get Good Speaks
- Weigh early and often through the round. Demonstrate how your arguments interact with others on the flow.
- Demonstrate a clear strategy and understanding of the importance of arguments on the flow. Don't just go for everything or straight down the flow.
- Collapse in the 2NR/2AR! It is not worth either of our time for you to go for everything every round.
- Be clear in CX. Good strategies needn't be disguised.
- Don't argue with me about my decision. I will dock you speaks.
If you are clear, I will probably give between a 28 (borderline) and 30 (perfect, you've done something laudable, or I learned something). If you are not clear, I will probably give you between a 26 and a 27.5. Any points lower than 26 will be for punitive reasons (overt aggression or rudeness, problematic, etc).
I think debate has a lot of potential for good, but it's going to take effort from both of us to ensure that it's reached. Ask me questions after round if you want. Just don't argue about the decision.