Wildcat Classic at Valdosta High School
2018 — Valdosta, GA/US
BQD Judge Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideMy Paradigm:
I am a high school counselor/teacher at Santa Fe High School in Alachua, FL. I have experience in judging some of the Debate styles, but by and large my preference is the Speech events. I earned a letter in Theater during high school which gives me an appreciation for the speech events. I also am interested in social justice concerns as well as current events, which is why I enjoy coming to these tournaments.
Things you should know about me:
1. I like for you to lay out your speech or debates in advance. I do not want to get to the end of your event and not be clear on what it was you were trying to convey. If you have three points tell me what they are and then proceed to flesh them out. If you are countering an opponent's points tell me which ones. My mind likely does not make the same assumptions that yours does so it will be helpful for you to state your logic.
2. I do not like spreading. Please don't do it. My mind is older than yours and I need more think time.
3. I like fair and respectful debate. Please don't be hostile to one another, it is unpleasant for all of us to be exposed to that.
4. I am a newer judge, please keep it topical. If you run a K I will be confused by it.
5. Lastly I love all things Disney so my heart will be warmed by any mention of anything related to the Disney Empire.
Updated January 2024
Contact info: lindseydebate@gmail.com
Background: I debated in LD for 4 years at William T. Dwyer High School and graduated in 2017. I was a lone wolf at most tournaments and got 1 bid to TOC my senior year. I also competed in several college policy tournaments at University of Florida. Jack Ave was my coach in highschool and Charles Karcher was my partner in college policy if that helps fill in any gaps of my paradigm (aside from LARP).
General:
I will vote on almost any argument so long as it is clearly explained why and how I should do so; however, I reserve the right to vote you down if you make blatantly offensive arguments or say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as well as make blatant evidence violations. Do not miscut or misattribute evidence.
Kritiks are great and philosophy in general is great.
Be nice to novices pls and just nice in general. If you feel like you have to exclude your opponent on purpose by spreading or drowning them things they clearly don't understand, for example theory, topicality, etc. your speaks will suffer and you might get voted down. If you do not think you can still win the debate by being inclusive to a novice or someone clearly worse than you, then strike me. Debate should be educational and should not leave a debater suffering in round because of the other debater having a ruthless desire to win.
Give trigger warnings for potentially triggering arguments.
Weighing and impacting is very important- I want to hear how I should vote and why. Write my ballot for me. If there is no weighing, I will be sad.
Prep ends when email is sent or flash leaves the computer. If you are typing, it is prep.
CX is binding.
Flex prep is fine.
I don't want to hear a lengthy spew of cards. You can read cards as refutation, but please add analysis as to why I should care.
Signposting is very important, especially for PF. Please be extra clear.
*LD*
Defaults if not told otherwise:
K/epistemology before theory
Comparative worlds
Speed:
I’m okay with spreading and I will yell clear if I cannot understand. It has been a few years since I have judged so maybe start slower with your speed. Please put me on the email chain though- see above for my email.
Kritiks:
This is my favorite form of debate. I am not as well read on high theory, but I am open to listen to anything. When reading these types of arguments, assume I know nothing. So long as debaters clearly explain what their argument means and does, then I will vote on it. I am also open to non T K affs.
Topicality/Theory:
Friv theory makes me sad.
Topicality is cool if run well.
I will vote on it if you win it, but it may be harder to win in front of me. I am not that good at flowing spikes so keep that in mind when deciding how many you want to read.
LARP:
Although I did policy debate, when I judge LD I don't want to feel like I'm judging policy. Not a fan, but you do you; however, if the arguments win, then they win.
Disclosure:
I think disclosure CAN be a good norm for debate but is NOT practiced well- please keep that in mind. Disclosure theory can be run in front of me, but if you are running it on someone who doesn’t know what disclosure is- that will be bad for you and it will make me sad. If you are running it against a small school/lone wolf debater, I will probably have more leniencies for them. If it is being used as a frivolous tactic, I will be sad.
*PF*
My LD background frames my view of debate; however, I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging. Signposting and weighing is incredibly important. I like rounds to be as clear and fleshed out as possible. Write my ballot for me. LD norms have bled over into PF so if those types of arguments are going to be read, they need to be read well with uniqueness/link/impact. Please don't assume because I did LD that you will have a better chance at winning just for reading these types of arguments. You can read whatever you want in front of me, so long as it is read, impacted and weighed well.
~
Overall, have fun, learn something, and be a good human. Don’t change your style to please a judge, just debate well. 1 extra speaker point for doggo or kitty memes and Ru Paul’s Drag Race references- I like to know when debaters have read and payed attention to my paradigm :) Good luck!!<3