Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2018 — Tempe, AZ/US

Hannah Aiken Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vibha Argawal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Abby Atonal Rodriguez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Paxton Attridge Paradigm

SPEED
I don't prefer it - I've watched it cut off a lot of access to both competitors and programs. This said, if both competitors want to run speed, I can follow it.
THEORY
Low threshold, but I'll only be persuaded to sign a ballot on it if the abuse is framed as particularly egregious. 
OTHER THINGS
Keep offcase clean, be clear with impact calculus, and be civil in CX (not just because niceness=good, but additionally, nobody will be doing their best argumentation when feeling attacked or ridiculed).

Katie Austin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shreya Bhattacharyya Paradigm

I'm a sophomore at Northwestern University and I competed for four years at Dougherty Valley High School in California. My main events were Congress and Original Advocacy, but I have some experience in World Schools Debate and PF. I prefer traditional styled debates at an average speed. The debate should involve polished presentation skills, a lot of clash with the other team, and an emphasis on evidence. I value a good balance between presentation and content, so make sure you prove your ability to manage both those aspects of a debate in the round. Also, be respectful to your opponents and your partner!

Rachel Billings Paradigm

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for the convincing evidence and confidence.  As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

Bryce Brothers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robin Brown Paradigm

LD
Judging Experience: 8 Years
High school coach, 8 years
High school policy debate, 4 years.


Overview: in general, I prefer traditional value debate in LD. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc. 
I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian.
I am not a fan of the narrative.


Plans: I will accept cases which offer some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy—I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with something squirrely (and potentially abusive), that’s not ok. With that in mind, it's debaters' responsibility to point out that their opponent is running squirrely/abusive plan.


Kritiks: I'll accept them.


Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.


Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing. 


Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.). 

Mary Chao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Allison Chen Paradigm

I did PF in high school (though my main event was Interp) and have judged PF at various tournaments. I'm currently a sophomore at Yale, prospectively majoring in Global Affairs/Econ.

Keeping this paradigm simple and concise:

-Spreading is fine (I did it a lot as well--and I can keep up when I judge)

-Weighing is absolutely crucial in final focus--don't make me do the work for you!

-Clash

There you go! Simple and concise! Have fun!

Yunuen Cho Paradigm

Debate Paradigm: I call it the "Two Trains Passing in the Night" dilemma if both competitors/teams are not responding to each others arguments.

I hold more weight to responses than to evidence thrown into the debate. Evidence should be weighed if asked by the topic, if not, use that evidence to respond to the other arguments: your best bet. Shows a clean debate.

Speech Paradigm: Clarity! Be excited, you chose to roll with this piece. Show it off!

Kateri Christian Paradigm

Not Submitted

Spencer Coben Paradigm

Not Submitted

Megan Codling Paradigm

Not Submitted

Timothy J Cornwell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Becky Cryder Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Dalton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Janniqua Dawkins Paradigm

Not Submitted

Peter De Marneffe Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jake Dean Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matt Dietz Paradigm

I’m a former national qualifer in speaking events. Looking forward to some great speeches. Have fun!

John Doller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Dominiak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ginger Ehrke Paradigm

Not Submitted

Leanne Emas Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Fauria Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brandon Ferderer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Judy Fong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wayne Frank Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lacey Fron Paradigm

Not Submitted

LJ Gomez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chris Greenleaf Paradigm

Not Submitted

Erin Guiney Paradigm

I have experience competing, judging, and coaching both Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate and have judged a handful of Novice LD rounds.

For Congress:

60% presentation, 40% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male competitors as 'representative' and female competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. Please give me impacts.

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow CX. You will not be able to speak faster than I will be able to flow. I need impacts, please, and clear taglines. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. If you are rude in CX I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. Also I do not care who the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to know what you are talking about.

For NLD:

I'm new to this, so please speak clearly, give me impacts, and use your value and criterion throughout the round. I won't flow CX and I won't be able to keep up if you go full spread on me. Weigh impacts and condense the debate for me more and more every speech so it is clear what the main issues are.

Tracy Hancey Paradigm

LD - I am a traditional judge, I do not favor progressive LD. I look for clash and a good morality debate. I also favor good communication. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Aubree Hansen Paradigm

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater and current assistant coach of La Cueva High School in Albuquerque, NM (and school counselor at Washington Middle School!). My last competitive experience was at the 2008 National Tournament in LD. My only significant policy judging experience is at the 2017 National tournament in Birmingham, AL and last year's ASU tournament. 

I believe that debate is meant to be a persuasive activity, and I lean toward preferring a slower style. I will not understand much if you spread. I am pretty traditionalist and value/criteria are really important to how I weigh a round. I am not entirely fluent in policy style argumentation or lingo and I expect logic and reasoning in your case.

I never tolerate rude, sexist, or racist behavior in a round and speaker points will reflect that if I see it. Be eloquent and persuasive. I need to see clash in the debate. Sum it up for me with clear voting issues in your final speech and show me how your world looks different from that of your opponent.

Claire Hansen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alexander Haw Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xavier Henes Paradigm

Overview

I flow everything that I hear and am able to understand excluding cross, so speed is not a problem to the extent that you annunciate and are clear, but if you get garbled and i can't understand you it will not end up on the flow.

LD:

Did PF in HS but have been judging both consistently for the 4 years. I'm always down for some progressive debate but be very explicit if your running progressive vs traditional b every explicit on why your theory outweighs or like keeps them in some ethical violation because I see no problem in voting for that, however, always try and run some solvency with it to prove that like you break out of the same problem. Other than that, I'm down for anything really.

In regards to speed, I'm fine with it, however, slow down on taglines, authors, contention titles and any analysis that you deem important for the round. If you become extremely unclear I will say clear. In weighing the round I think framework is very important to the round, and I want to ensure that you as a debater understand and actually link into it. If you don't you will get dropped so ensure that you have a clear reason and tell me why you link into your theory, and if you perm their's or any of their contention tell me why, don't just say it fits in my framework unless it's blatantly obvious. It is therefore it is imperative that you understand I ALWAYS weigh framework/Roll of Ballot is the first to be evaluated.

I'm down for anything really run whatever you feel comfortable with, but ensure that you actually understand. I try to be as tab as possible, so I'll vote for something if you give me enough legitimate backing for the argumentation. The Major Key to picking up my ballot is spending the last 30ish seconds of your last speech to breaking down and giving me voters. ALSO NEVER EVER FORGET EXTENSIONS, I WILL NOT EXTEND FOR YOU, IF YOU DROP IT, IT IS DROPPED.

PF:

Rebuttal: I don't like lazy debate its bad, that being said you have to give me a reason why I should accept your contention over theirs not just because the tags are different. In your rebuttal if you don't give me a reason to value your information/data whatever it may be I have no reason to.

Summaries: I need argument selection. Otherwise, the entire flow falls apart and I will be sad. Tell me why y'all are winning the arguments you choose and why they are important. If an argument was extended in neither summary, it isn't evaluated at the end of the round. Kicking out of arguments in the summary is strategic and I'll be very happy if you do it well.

Final Foci: My decision is based on the final focus, but the final focus must only include arguments extended through summary. Extending offense last mentioned in the rebuttal will make me sad and I won't evaluate them. Weighing your voters / strat is *hella* important. If you don't weigh in the final focus, you forfeit your right to complain if you lose (although you should never complain about your losses).

Specifics

Extensions: Extending through ink does nothing for me. Answer the responses, otherwise, it's like you never made the extension in the first place.

Evidence: I genuinely believe that the fabrication of evidence is what ruins debate as an academic activity. I will call for evidence after the round has ended only when there's a significant dispute throughout the round or when I'm asked explicitly in a speech to do so. If there is legitimate abuse of evidence, you're getting dropped with probably 0 speaks. Don't make me do this.

Speaker Points

- I don't mind giving a low-point win.

- Speaker Points will be based upon these things:

Clarity, Confidence, Content

Alexandrea Holley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ian Hopkins Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kun Hu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Benjamin Hughes Paradigm

My Experience/Background

In college, I took semesters of parliamentary debate. Today, I'm a coach at the middle school level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with 15 years of coaching experience. I'm also the founder of OC Debate League in California - affiliated with the MSPDP (if you're familiar).

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I try to be a blank slate as much as possible: I don't know anything until you tell me. I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish.

Speaker Scores

Students will earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge, and please, no spreading!

Victoria Huynh Paradigm

In case anyone is curious, I have had minimal experience in HI, Duo, Oratory, and Prose and had my main event as Expository Speaking.

If I can't understand you, then I can't give a proper evaluation. Therefore, speak in a loud and clear manner. If possible, unless I am the only one in the room, maintain eye contact with other individuals other than myself. Since I will be making general notes (i.e. topic, movements, volume, inflection in tone, etc), I can assure you that I will not be making eye contact for the entirety--or even majority--of the round.

Other than that, be sure to shake off any nerves you have and have fun with your performance! I can't invest myself in watching you if you don't first convince me to do so. :)

Patrick Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sheridan Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sharayah Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nancy Karcher Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gia Karpouzis Paradigm

Coach for Westridge School for Girls, Flintridge Preparatory School

- non-interventionist until the point where something problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- If you're a male and use your privilege to speaker over another debater in cross, your speaker points will reflect it. Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters.

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. Regardless, if you say anything important in crossfire, make sure it is in speech so I can flow it.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters, especially womxn in debate, wear.

- Everything said in Final Focus needs to be said in Summary except for terminal defense

- Please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep

- please please please please please WEIGH: pre empt this in summary, absolutely do this in Final Focus, this is how I decide how I vote - tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of. email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person :)

Kaitlyn Kelley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nick Klemp Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kristine Knutson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Whitney Kubal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shaul Leket-Mor Paradigm

I am open for any type of story or message that you want to tell. Judging will be based on how well you show that message. Just make sure that you are careful with matters concerning sexual assault, self-harm, or any other possible sensitive topics. Not to say that you can't have those topics be addressed, but make sure that they are talked about tastefully.

Alec Lenamond Paradigm

My name is Alec Lenamond. I am a 4th year Applied Mathematics major at the University of California, San Diego. I graduated from Citrus Valley High School in 2014 and have years of experience in Lincoln Douglas Debate, both on a local and national level.

tl;dr: (1) Speed okay (email chain appreciated), (2) advise against Theory and K's, (3) default probability over magnitude, and (4) pls debate the topic instead of arguing at each other.

Speed: I'll start by saying I have not judged much over the last few years so don't complain if I miss important information if you are spreading. I'm not opposed to speed, but I think there can still be great substantive debate at a normal conversational pace. If you do wish to spread, I would appreciate being included in an email chain or have the case(s) flashed to me.

Paradigm: I always evaluate framework first, but you need not win the framework debate to get my ballot. I resolve framework and then see which contentions/arguments win under that framework, so it is entirely possible to win under your opponent’s standard. In most cases, losing the framework debate will likely put you at somewhat of a disadvantage on the ballot, but I think there's great strategic potential in dropping framework to go all in on contentions (especially if you're negating).

As far as voting issues are concerned, winning the framework debate is not a voting issue. It is absolutely necessary to address framework in the last speech, but only as a means to tell me how to evaluate your voting issues. In other words, do not expect my ballot just because you won the framework debate.

Preferences: I generally prefer consequentialism because substantial arguments are quantifiable, making it easier to compare and debate the impact of the resolution. I am not opposed to means-based frameworks, but I feel they substantially limit the scope of the debate and, more often than not, confuse the shit out of me because debaters can't properly articulate what it means.

Absent any discussion on probability vs magnitude, I will default to the most probable impact. However, I highly encourage debaters to engage in a probability vs magnitude debate if relevant to the debate.

As a side note, I was never well-trained in Theory, Topicality, or RVIs so I will never make a decision on that. Still call out abuse if it's apparent but don't use theory as a strategy to win the debate.

Though I have some experience with K debates, I would rather debaters avoid this strategy as a whole and actually debate the substance of the resolution. If you run a K, please do not spread since I am not well-versed in literature. I also have a high threshold for voting for the K. Be extremely articulate when it comes to (1) the link to the AC, (2) the impact from voting for the AC, and (3) why the K comes before the standard offered by the AC. Most times, when I vote against a K it's because (3) is unclear or underdeveloped.

Prep Time: I generally prefer to give both debaters as much time as necessary to prepare for speeches, so long as both debaters have an equal claim to preparation. If taking an extra minute of prep results in a better quality debate, by all means take your time. However, I will not allow you to utilize unused prep time as additional speaking time. Flex prep is okay.

Evidence: I reserve the right to call for evidence after the round. I will only call for evidence if (a) it is significant in decision-making for the round or (b) if there is a dispute over what the evidence says. I will not call for evidence if I believe it to be falsified or misrepresentative of the author’s true intentions, as that is the debaters’ jobs to identify in the debate.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have on any other issue before/after the debate!

Tracy Leve Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dale Levinsky Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jake Long Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jacque Lyman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Frankie Marchi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shannon Maze Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kate McGarey-Vasey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Daniel Mena Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kara Menning Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Pricilla Merritt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anne Meyers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yesmeen Mikhail Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anupam Misra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Greg Morton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maria Mucino Paradigm

Not Submitted

Justin Myman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tracie Nall Paradigm

Not Submitted

Valerie Navarete Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lars Niemi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jens Niemi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Niemiec Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tracey O'Rourke Paradigm

Not Submitted

Susan Ontiveros Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julie Orme Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jody Orme Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julie Parkinson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jennifer Partridge Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jillian Plewe Paradigm

Not Submitted

Benjamin Pope Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laurelann Porter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anna Potrafke Paradigm

I am a lay judge and I prefer a slower pace. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot judge it.

Shelby Reid Paradigm

Lay judge.

Parent 4th year involvement.

Have fun, flow like water.

You are all amazing:)

Tyler Rife Paradigm

Not Submitted

James Ritchey Paradigm

This is my second year judging with little experience prior.  Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude.  I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing.  I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win.  I am also not a fan of progressive arguements.  Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application.  Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.  

Jaela Robinson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hunter Rogers Paradigm

Experience

- 3 years of Collegiate Debate (IPDA)

- B.A. Speech Communications

- M.A. Higher Education Administration

-several years experience judging IPDA, Policy, LD, PF & IEs.

 

I have two main paradigms

1. Quality Over Quanity ( I can keep up with speed but i will weigh the quality and effectivness of contentions and clash over the shear amount of contentions a debater brings. So don't overthink it. Speed can prevent great debators from being effective communicators. 

2. Afirmative Burden (The AFF's job is to uphold the resolution and ultimately "convince" the judge of a position, all the NEG has to do is to sow doubt in the AFF's case and there are countless ways to do that. Because of this reality there exists a very real and statistically significant burden for the AFF side. To improve this imbalance I will generally allow the AFF the space to define the round and will adopt their Value/Criterion as long as it is a fair and reasonable approach that can provide clash for the Neg.

 

Myrna Rolfness Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amber Root Paradigm

Not Submitted

Justin Roth Paradigm

Not Submitted

Carter Santini Paradigm

Not Submitted

Scott Schuerman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Angela Shalizi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Roman Shemakov Paradigm

I did PF and LD for three years in high school. I'm fine with everything; ask for specifics in the round.

Kshitiz Singh Paradigm

Uh I did LD on-and-off for a few years while in high school; while definitely not my strong suit, I am still comfortable with most, if not all, progressive arguments.

I want clear extensions in the 1AR and 2NR and clear impact weighing in the 2AR and end of the 2NR- trust me, you don't want me doing the weighing for you because I guarantee it will not work out in your favor. Don't make me do work for you on the flow.

Warrants are key- I need to know the rationale behind your argument, and will not let you just hide behind the name of some godforsaken philosopher. If the argument isn't well-warranted and the opposing team mentions this, it's gonna get dropped.

I am not explicitly opposed to any arguments except theory; if you run theory that shell better be pristine and that violation better be extremely blatant. Chances are that if the theory gets touched on in any capacity in the 2NR (by whoever you're reading the theory against) I will probably not flow it through. Just don't do theory, please. 

Some general protocol:

Flex prep is cool with me

Don't be rude/racist/sexist/ableist in round

That's it- have fun! Seriously this activity is meant to be educational and enjoyable! If you have any specific question I'd be happy to answer them before we start in round.

Jennifer St. Clair Paradigm

Speech judging paradigm: be bold, original, and thought provoking. Cursing and singing are fine with me. Be respectful of other competitors while observing or having your team/family observe you.

Debate judging paradigm: I have the most experience with LD and competed in this event during my years in high school. I love and have judges all forms of debate, including Big Questions and World Schools. I value dignity, civility, and respect, in addition to being a flow judge. If you drop arguments or introduce new evidence in a round, I will notice and weigh that in my decision. I appreciate good, strong clash, as well as a clear understanding of one's case and evidence, so that debaters not only READ a card at me but can actually paraphrase it and link its impact. I DO pay attention during CX, and weigh the nature of questions and responses as a deciding factor in close rounds. Thank you for competing.

Natalie Steinbrink Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brandon Stewart Paradigm

Not Submitted

Deirdre Sullivan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Fargo Tbakhi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Christian Torresluna Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Tristano Paradigm

Not Submitted

Benjamin Tully Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mathew Walker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lizabeth Walsh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Melisa Wilson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jen Woodley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Scott Woods Paradigm

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I've judged at the TOC twice and at NSDA Nationals twice. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsportsmanlike behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for being sneaky, that is, for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable man" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up.  Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having travelled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I especially don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it doesn't add any time to the round, but encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

 

Eddie Young Paradigm

Not Submitted