LA NCFL Qualifiers

2018 — CA/US

Pat Aguilar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Scott Brown Paradigm

Scott Brown (he/him/his)

Current: LD Coach @ Honor Academy in Cerritos, CA.

Previous: Centennial(MD), McDonogh, Fullerton Union, others.

I have actively coached competitive debate for over a decade. My background is in Policy Debate, but I'm also very experienced in LD & PF.

If you do prefer me, please be forewarned that I do actually have preferences and ask that you do some adaptation (if necessary). I am in zero ways offended by you striking me. Please, go ahead. If you need some strikes, I volunteer as tribune.

I can heave a mint green Tady #45 surface iron WAY further than "Joseph Barquin".

Online Updates:

Please slow down. SLOW DOWN. Slow. Down. 80% MAX speed, IF that. No Operation Warp Speed. Does this mean you'll have to take positions out of the NC? Yes, but it also means the AFF has to take arguments out of the 1AR. Your microphone quality is probably a LOT worse than you think (especially if you're NOT using a studio mic and/or audio interface). If this confuses you or you think you can still read at top speed, please strike me.

I live in a small duplex with a Kindergartner and a 2 year old that's FULLY in the midst of the "terrible twos" and ask that you please be respectful when there are surprise appearances or interruptions. I'll work hard to minimize these instances, but cannot promise they will not happen.

I've been a huge advocate for debate film study since 2011. If it not against the rules of the tournament and both debaters' parent(s) or legal guardians print this video consent form and e-mail a picture of it filled out back to me (sbrowndebategmail), I will happily record the debate and privately share it with both debaters after the debate.

General:

I'm currently flowing on paper. I don’t want to be on your email chain. I don't follow along in the speech doc. I flow card warrants.

You must give your opponent a copy of your evidence before your speech begins (if using a laptop) or as it happens (if using paper).

I will proactively judge intervene to end a debate if any form of clipping/bad ethics occurs.

As a judge, and as students, being able to organize a debate is important. Successful line by line refutation is necessary.

I don't have a "debater poker face". I nod along if I get what you're doing, laugh at jokes, smile, give perplexing looks if I don't get what you're saying, etc.

I'm a sucker for smart analytical arguments

I often read very little to no evidence after the debate (I don't think I read a single piece of evidence the entirety of last season) and often make my decision very quickly. I will disclose my decision and provide verbal comments after the debate.

Truth > Tech

Zero Risk very frequently occurs

If you make a joke that insults my civic pride (Ravens/Orioles) that I DON'T think is funny, your speaker points for the round will almost certainly be the low that's dropped in the high/low.

NO POST ROUNDING. If you have a problem with my decision, strike me next time. If you engage in actions that I think are "Post Rounding", I will give a single warning before I terminate/end the RFD and comments/feedback for you (I will still give comments/feedback to your opponent).

I have no idea how to give speaker points in 2020. I was told after Jack Howe that apparently my points are super low. If that's something you care about you might want to lower me a couple places on your pref sheet.

LD/Policy:

Speed/"Spreading" is fine as long as you are "clear" (clear means that you audibly articulate the difference between each and every syllable of each and every word). If you do not clearly say every syllable of every word while spreading, you cannot get above a 27.

If executed properly, I'm great for 'conditionality' bad and most "theory" arguments. I'm really bad for the NEG if the AFF properly executes theoretical arguments against positions such as Consult & Process CPs.

I'm an atrociously bad judge for you if your strategy is to read a blazing fast 11 point analytical underview and go for "they dropped 7-Eleven".

I will not vote for these argument even if they are dropped: RVIs, "New Affs Bad", "Nebel T", "Disclosure Good Theory", "Tricks"

I will not flow evidence from a debate coach, former debater, or debate website (Nebel, Ryan James' LinkedIn Page, Edebate posts from Nooch, Solt DRG articles, etc).

If you run a "trick", I'm going to pull a trick on you called not flowing your "tricks".

I don't believe in proactive "Judge Kick". If you explain in your speech how a world of a kicked CP/K still wins you the debate, I'm totally down. You can't just say "Judge Kick" or except me to proactive assert a "Judge Kick" when it isn't an argument on my flow.

I dislike judging "framework" debates. I often feel like passive observer who has no idea what to do at the end of the debate.

If I am prefed for a "Baudrillard" vs. "Baudrillard" debate, I will actually literally flip a coin because the coin will do a better job of judging this debate than I will.

In a utopia, my ideal panel would be Daryl Burch, Steve Pointer, and Chris Randall. And I would go for T.

Michael Koo often described people who highly prefed me as rolling dice. I don't disagree.

PF:

If your evidence isn't read in "cards" and is just a bunch of paraphrasing with the author's name, you will receive the lowest speaker points the tournament deems acceptable (and *almost certainly* lose the debate).

Please don't shake my hand.