2018 — KY/US
Jonathan Bartels Paradigm
Elizabeth Bender Paradigm
Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how I am expected to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.
Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD is intended to be broadly understood. There is no excuse for obfuscation.
Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled the case down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but the RFD comes down to case powers, not case "flowers".
Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer the questions that are asked of you in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within the allotted time.
Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that might appear rude. I do down-vote teams that break these rules.
Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't linger on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important contentions/issues uncontested, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.
John Boylan Paradigm
Isaiah Bryant Paradigm
Bryan Burns Paradigm
Carly Crawford Paradigm
Jeff Darnell Paradigm
John Docter Paradigm
Mr. Fox Paradigm
Kevin Gallagher Paradigm
I am a volunteer parent judge with experience in the Wilson Wyatt Debate League and the Kentucky Debate League.
I look for strong arguments, contentions, supported by logic and facts. Quality and clarity are more important than quantity with respect to factual support. I look for strong rebuttals and lively exchanges. Strong command of the issue and preparedness are readily apparent.
Sheila Gray Paradigm
Ben Hanson Paradigm
Niki Harrison Paradigm
Roshani Kolwalkar Paradigm
Dhanalakshmi Kulasekaran Paradigm
Sandeep Mathur Paradigm
Ken Moellman Paradigm
Michelle Paddock Paradigm
Randy Perkins Paradigm
I prefer persuasion over speed and substance over technicality. Please do not spread. If I can't understand your arguments and evidence, you will not score well. Be sure to define appropriate terms, and structure your contentions so that they fit comfortably with your value and value criterion. I prefer the use of both logical reasoning and convincing evidence in arguments and contentions, so I don't mind the use of cards in cases and rebuttals. I believe that the argument should be easy to follow and concise (no policy style cases).
Rachel Roscoe Paradigm
Kevin Seo Paradigm
Michael Sharp Paradigm
- Substance of argument over style of argumentation is a primary metric by which I seek to appraise a round. There are many debate styles that may come and go in popularity, but the substance of an argument is central to all. Accomplish substance more thoroughly than your opponent and a win will be earned.
- Intelligent and Intelligible arguments are preferred. In other words, provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed/flowed in proper fashion.
- Strong development of argumentative framework, appropriate evidence, and proper linkage are all assets in a round.
- Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponent.
- Special Note: A significant and primary task of a winning debate is to address the resolution, address the resolution, and address the resolution. Those who address the resolution will have a far better chance at earning a win than those who seek to address a matter that lies outside of the stated scope of a round. Specifically, one should be prepared to debate the chosen topic not a topic about the topic or of your preference.
- I have debated in high school and college with primary experience in Policy and Lincoln Douglas styles. I have coached at the high school level for a number of years during my teaching tenure at North Oldham High School and strongly support the Wilson Wyatt Debate League philosophy of providing constructive reflection for debaters.
Jake Simpson Paradigm
Priya Srinivasan Paradigm
Correna Tate Paradigm
Autumn White Paradigm
Cooper Winrich Paradigm
Jennifer Xu Paradigm
David Yi Paradigm
***Updated for Barkley Forum 2019***
Hey! My name is David. I currently attend Purdue University, pursuing a major in Pre-Medicine. I attended duPont Manual High School from 2014-2018 and debated on the national circuit in LD for four years. I debated and broke at almost every bid tournament I attended and reached multiple bid rounds over the course of my career. Although I greatly preferred national circuit debate in my time as a debater, I also debated a good amount on my local circuit where the style was predominantly traditional.
I will vote for any argument that's clearly explained and won. I think debate is a strategic game (make no mistake: it’s best when it's education), but I think everyone should do whatever floats their boat. My only concern is that you don't do/say anything offensive or hurtful. Speed? Yes. Clear? YES. Efficient? Yes. Weighing? Please. Speaks will be based heavily on strategy, collapsing, weighing, a clear ballot story that effectively covers the important issues in the debate, and style (I’ll leave that last one up for interpretation).
· Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
· Go as fast as you want—I’ll yell clear or slow 3 times
· Policy affs, DAs, and CPs are awesome
· I like substance debates
· Theory and T are cool
· Kritikal positions are dope—be creative
· I LOVE impact turns
· Number args if you can
· If flashing takes too much time I’ll take prep
This is the order of how well I can evaluate a certain type of argument—not how much I like it. I'm open to anything! See below on my preferences when running specific arguments.
1 — LARP/Util
2 — Kritikal Positions, T
3 — Theory, Framework/Philosophy
4 — Tricks (only because they're hard to flow sometimes)
Feel free to ask me questions before the round about my positions or preferences! Don’t forget to have fun!
· smart arguments
· good strategy
· offense offense offense
· fast and efficient tech skills
· strategically written cases
· being funny (if you’re really good and also make me laugh, you might just get a bonus speaker point)
· good CX questions and answers
· demonstrating a thorough understanding of the literature you’re reading (literally just being SMART)
· lack of weighing
· poor strategic decisions
· going for everything in your last speech (this is justified sometimes though)
· Read impact defense. It makes it a lot easier to prove why your offense outweighs.
· Do impact calc!!!!!! This could be make it or break it for you.
· Try not to have tags that are really short like “plan kills polcap” or “dems win,” it makes it harder to flow.
· Great evidence comparison will give you good speaks.
· You don’t need to read evidence for everything; smart analytics are good too (especially when you're responding to these positions).
· Extinction is cool. If you win that extinction precludes Kant in front of me then I might give extra speaks. :)
· All types of CPs are cool, but don't blame me if your opponent reads theory.
· Please have a text to your alt, but texts for framing arguments aren’t required.
· Performance args are cool, but if it’s very graphic/would make people uncomfortable/etc, please ask if the people in the room are okay with it.
· Not everyone who doesn’t read performance or Ks is a horrible person—you don’t need to be mean.
· You don’t need to be topical.
· I’ll give you higher speaks if you really know your literature. I learned a TON from mentors and coaches throughout the years so I’ll be able to tell if you at least sound like you know what you’re talking about.
· I don’t have “defaults” in the sense that the debaters need to justify these things, but I guess I “default” to the norms of the activity, which seem to be drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps.
· PLEASE weigh, especially when there’s a ton of arguments interacting in the round.
· I default to a strength of link style of evaluation on various meta-layers of the theory debate, such as on paradigmatic issues or voter weighing (i.e. if you have a ton of offense to education, and they have a tiny amount to fairness, the fact that fairness outweighs is probably not sufficient to vote for their shell).
· Make sure you explain your arguments if they’re really dense. I'm generally good on most framework authors.
· Being able to weigh between framework warrants is a really good skill and I’ll give you good speaks, mainly because without it framework debate is hard to resolve.
· I’m not going to lie about this, but I generally don’t like tricks that much. I can see how some tricks can be based in interesting philosophical or metaphysics principles that are thought-provoking, but these are many times irrelevant to the topic. I empathize with debaters who have committed hours and hours to endless research/prep about the topic because I believe in hard work—that’s what I did back in the day and I want to reward students who are going through the same thing. It would be a shame for me to have to drop a kid who has done pages and pages of card cutting to defend their one util aff to a kid who has read a extempted two second plan flaw spike in the NC. I am willing to vote for it. Just don’t be sketchy and you’ll get the ballot and the speaks you deserve.
· Labelling/clearly distinguishing categories of arguments on case is helpful. For example, if you read 3 pieces of impact defense read it on the impact section of case/DA and number them 1, 2, 3. That'll make me happy.
· If you’re aff, I’ll give you bonus points for strategically writing your aff/having a clear game plan for the 1AR to defend against case dumps.
Speaks are generally scaled based on the difficultly of the tournament, but this is a general guideline.
30.0 — You were perfect in this round. You should win the tournament.
29.5 — You did amazing. You should make it to late elimination rounds.
29.0 — You did great. You will break at the very least.
28.5 — You did good. You should be able to break.
28.0 — You did alright. You could break—maybe. You have some work to do.
27.5 — You did average. You have many things to work on.
27.0 — You did eh. You have a LOT of areas to improve on and you need work.
Below 27.0 — You did something offensive or terribly wrong or I couldn’t understand a single thing you said.
That's basically it! In high school I had SUCH a good time with debate. I was fortunate enough to never have any drama or traumatic experiences with debate and I really think that everyone should be able to say the same. I hope you all help each other to do that as well. As someone who is now out of the activity, I really cherished the years that I could debate. It was a huge part of my life. I just want to say that you all should make every important moment last and do your best so that you don’t have any regrets. A terrible Physics teacher I had in high school once told me that you can only be unhappy about an outcome if you’ve truly put in every ounce of effort and you still don’t reach your goal.
I wish you all the best of luck!
*Disclaimer: A lot of this was borrowed from Kieran Cavanagh. Shout out to him for letting me borrow some of this stuff.