Middle School TOC hosted by UK
2018 — KY/US
Rest Aliu Paradigm
Brian Anderson Paradigm
Anderson Debate Paradigm
4 years NFA-LD.
please include on email chain (email@example.com) or speechdrop
Fine with speed.
Will vote on potential abuse, unless a debater wins that I should not vote on potential abuse.
Condo- I personally think the negative should be allowed as many counterplans as the AFF has adv(s) + 1 (like an agent CP and *number of Advantages* CP(s). I’ll have a very low threshold on condo bad theory if more that are run. At the end of the round only one counterplan should be gone for/squo defended. However, if the AFF wins that condo is bad then I’d vote aff. If you outtech the AFF on why multiple counterplans are good, then I won’t vote on condo bad. I don’t think “drop the arg not the debater” is persuasive in condo theory debates.
Topicality- I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll vote on reasonability if it’s won. To me, limits is the most important standard, but I think precision or others can be persuasive if the T-interp creates an undue burden for the AFF. The AFF rebuttal would ideally explain why the AFF is a fair parametrization of the resolution and how the AFFs justified are good for x,y,z theoretical reason(s).
SPEC Args- I think most of these are just defensive solvency arguments. However, I’ll still vote on them if the AFF loses the tech, especially if the AFF proves abuse.
Disclosure- I would vote on disclosure theory against either negs/affs. If you’ve done goofed and haven’t disclosed, then you should read a counterinterpretation as to why you shouldn’t have to disclose for X,Y,Z reason and then win offense in favor of that interp. i.e. “Debaters don’t have to disclose if the positions they read are on their team’s wiki” or something like that. Still probably an uphill battle, but if the other debater isn’t that good on the disclosure theory collapse then you could still win the round.
I could vote on Framework against Ks/K AFFs, provided the debater actually wins the FW flow (probably more persuaded by the Cap K tho). If the negative is just “They don’t defend the resolution and that’s against the rules,” that's not very persuasive. To me, FW debate is about why limits are good vs why the inclusion of the AFF and the AFFs justified by the AFF’s interp are necessary for X,Y,Z reason.
I’d like to know why the worldview promoted by other debater is wrong (link work), why it’s important to reject/stop that line of thinking (impact work), and how the alternative in some way resolves that worldview.
I’m interested in the extent to which the CP solves the AFF and if an accompanying DA/other source of offense is a bigger deal than any potential solvency deficits/turns on the counterplan.
PTX-Not super persuaded by “my card is from the next day” arguments on uniqueness though. I find warrant comparison between the cards on why X,Y,Z political thing will/will not happen to be more persuasive than spamming three UNQ/nonunq cards.
Impact Turns: Sure.
Parker Anderson Paradigm
Austin Barnes Paradigm
Elena Cecil Paradigm
Amy Cui Paradigm
Lisy Devin Paradigm
Jacob Dugger Paradigm
Mary Gearon Paradigm
Damon Helton Paradigm
Ryan Hubbard Paradigm
I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated.
Olivia James Paradigm
Dorri Mang Paradigm
Keely Moran Paradigm
Jamaque Newberry Paradigm
Jung Park Paradigm
Background: I teach language arts and communication at a private after school academy that I own with my husband. Also, I am a licensed attorney in California with a background in litigation. I have done extensive performing and public speaking and am a member of SAG. I have not debated in LD but enjoy it tremendously.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I am against spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases. The opponent and the judges do not even have to be able to understand the spreading since they have it before them. Yet, we in the audience, suffer, feeling we are too "dumb" to get it and wondering what is going on. Spreading alienates the average audience because it cannot understand the debaters. The truth is, many of these spreaders have not even practiced being articulate at normal speeds, so speeding up muddy articulation becomes impossible to comprehend. I am glad that many states are increasingly not allowing spreading at tournaments.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
Nate Risner Paradigm
Maria Sanchez Paradigm
Northside College Prep 12-16
University of Kentucky 16-Present
I like being on e-mail chains! firstname.lastname@example.org
I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about. Please be respectful to both your partner and your opponents and give it your best!
I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!
Conditionality is good.
I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.
I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.