Young Lawyers
2019 — Salt Lake City, UT/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideFor the debate round, I would like to see people broadening their case and explaining it in detail. Clearly format your statement so that I and your opponent can understand you. Evidence is highly favored to either side. Don't interrupt your opponent keep it respectful. Expand your value and how your upholding it. Tell me why you won.
Non-serious-The more raps/hip-hop the better. If you are wondering there are plenty of lyrics about the selling weapons to other countries so you should be good. If you are looking at this before round then just do you. The rap cards will only give you a slight jump in speaker points so if you are not comfortable with that then no worries. If there is a movie reference then I will generally be happier. You prolly want me happy sooo.
Serious-
1. Clear Framework. If you are going to go crazy then you better properly explain it, don't half ass it.
2. Ks are cool, but like framework you better properly explain it.
3. IMPACTS PLEASE. If there are no impacts then what's the point. If you don't' have impacts(bad idea) then explain why your opponents impacts fail or are irrelevant.
4. Speed is fine.
5. Will accept any argument (except anything blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic , etc.)
6. The more creative the better please excite me. I am slowly dying and need any spark of hope. Thank you.
7.VOTERS.
I am so happy to be here and judge this round today!
A few paradigms I have for Lincoln-Douglas Debate:
1) I am looking for a traditional debate with lots of clash. CPs are not preferred. If you are wanting to run something more progressive just know that there is a HIGH burden of explanation. I would only run a K with me as a judge if you were REALLY confident and, even then, I would not recommend doing so.
2) Remember to focus on the arguments! Not the opponent, don't make it personal. Don't be rude, belittle, or unnecessarily cut somebody off. Respect and Humility are core principles of the NSDA's Code of Honor and I expect them to be upheld throughout the round.
3) I'm huge on impact calculus! Give me all the implications and weigh your impacts. I honestly like you to spell them out for me. Say, "judge, this is a _____ (high magnitude, probability, etc.) impact because..." and I would eat that up. Weigh those impacts against your opponents; why should I care more about yours?
4) Voters are a big must for me because it shows me that you can consolidate to at least three main reasons why you win the round and it easily crystallizes the round.
5) Housekeeping: remember to signpost. If you drop an argument and your opponent addresses that, you lose the argument (aka manage your time wisely so you don't drop arguments or, if you do, have reasoning to do so).
I don't believe LD is a place for spreading. If you talk too fast, I will stop flowing.
If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.
I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.
While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.
In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.
Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.
If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.
FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.
Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.
When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.
Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.
Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks
-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"
-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock
-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"
-Rhyming
I’m fairly easy to please. Most of my judging comes down to impact calculus. I’m totally cool with any argument you want to make... feel free to read me the Lorax if you want to. Most of my debate experience is with traditional LD, but I can keep up with more progressive arguments. Im cool with K’s and theory arguments etc. I’ll try my best to keep up with spreading but I'm not great with speed and appreciate a slower case reading. If you do choose to spread (which is totally ok) please slow down for tag lines and make them very clear. I also appreciate clear and explicit voters in final speeches... I want you to tell me why you should win the round.
TLDR: I'll vote for anything that is well articulated, the debate is your space. I try to be tabula rasa. Spreading is great, but don't be abusive. Theory spikes are cool. I love a good theory debate. I like Ks and K affs, but keep in mind I may not know all the lingo on your specific author, so as a general rule simplify the Continental philosophy for me.
Quick BIO: I Debated for three years at Layton High school. Competed in Policy and LD. Competed on the Nat circuit and in local circuits. I am cool with Trad or Progressive. I am currently the Assistant coach at Layton High school.
Things I like:
Being polite, sharing ev, and being a cool person.
Solid Frameworks and Role of the Ballot. If you win this I'll probably vote for you.
Signposting and a road map
Good impact Calc.
K's I like if run well: Nietzsche, Language(Wittgenstein, Kripke, etc.), fiat-bad/fiat-good
Things I do not like:
-Rudeness and sass
-Exclusivity arguments ie: "my opponent cannot talk about X..."
-Poor articulation while spreading
-Abusive theory. for example (5+condo, multiple worlds theory, floating PIK)
-Purposely sloppy flash docs. Show respect to me and your opponent, do not bomb us with 50 cards. Please send me what you are actually going to read, I do not want anything else.
If you want Extra Speaks:
-make puns.
-be well articulated and have good strategy. Make it easy for me to sign my ballot for you.
I am the assistant debate coach for Layton High School. My background has primarily involved policy debate in high school and college. However, our students have moved into LD and PF so I find myself judging and supporting those events more. I usually judge more than a hundred rounds of debate each year spread out between the various debate events. I have switched to OneNote for flowing. If you provide your contact information (specifically email addresses) I will send you my flows after I have concluded the ballot. You are then welcome to discuss my flows and decision at anytime.
Jump/Email Chain
I expect to be included in all jumps and email chains. You can email me cxjudge@hotmail.com. As a rule of thumb, I usually do not review evidence until the end of the round and I use my flow as a filter to what I think you introduced into the debate. As of 1/2017 my preference is to use pocket box or something similar that just allows everyone to download the file after upload.
Timing
I expect you to keep track of your time so that I do not have to call out time remaining during a speech. I will do it if asked by a student and I will not hold it against you, but I do find it distracting from the speech. With that said, I track all time in the debate. Consider it the "official" time for the round. I work from my official time... that means when my time shows your speech is done, I stop flowing regardless if you keep talking for another 10 seconds. I usually allow students to answer CX questions put to them during the actual time of cross examination, even if this means the answer takes another 10 seconds or so in the round for a proper answer.
Speaks
I used to not care much and would routinely just award everyone 30's. However, I learned the folly of my ways after repeated conversations with tabrooms. Nowadays, everyone starts at 28 and can go up or down from there depending upon their performance. I think of a speaker's capabilities in the following categories: organization, clash, delivery (speed, clarity, tone - i.e. not yelling), argument development, technical skill, strategy and creativity. If you need a lengthy explanation of these categories there is probably something missing in your experience to the event. I am happy to briefly explain this to any competitor if they believe it will help their performance during the round I evaluate.
Prep Time
Traditionally, I have been very lax and generous with prep time. However, I find myself getting more annoyed with prep time abuse. With paper it used to be simple, stand up when you are ready to speak and the prep time ends. Now it seems that participants do things they do not consider prep (saving the file to a jump drive, emailing the file, organizing their flows, changing the order of the speech document, etc.). I am sympathetic to the technical challenges of paperless debate, but I have also experienced efficient rounds where everything moved incredibly smooth (especially when something like pocket box was used). I'd like more of that and less of the rounds that take an extra 15-20 minutes for "technical challenges" related to jump drives or slow emails. For the last few tournaments, I have maintained a more relaxed approach to prep time, I just nuke speaks if it appears to me like you are abusing prep time.
Nuisance Items
Actually not sure what to label this section, so think of this as things I do not like.
- I do not like poorly developed arguments. For example, "Perm do both" is absolutely meaningless without some warranting and articulation as to how that would actually work. I consider these types of blips as non-arguments. I am pretty up front and vocal about this and still debaters just go into default mode and make tons of these arguments... they are then surprised when I give them no weight. From my perspective, "Perm do both" is removed from consideration when the neg responds with "No don't do both". Both statements provide exactly the same amount of articulation and null out to a non-argument on my flows. This is by way of example, there are tons of these found on your speech documents. You will know it when you make a pointed argument that ends when you finish the tagline. Do the work to explain your argument or don't waste the flow.
- Evidence Mumbling or Abuse. Like many judges I prefer that you breathe between tags/authors/evidence so I can hear the natural break of your speech. I also listen to evidence and flow what I consider to be important points made by your evidence. If you mumble your evidence, power tag it, take it out of context, etc. I consider it invalid and it may cost you my ballot.
- Speech Document Abuse. This is a recent trend I have seen on the circuit and I will definitely get punitive to stop this. Here the debater loads a speech document with 40-50 pages of cards. They then proceed to skip all over the speech document expecting everyone to know/understand where they are. obviously this applies to my category of organization (see above). Further, I have seen this approach used to win debates where evidence is considered by the judge after the round EVEN THOUGH it was not read in the round. I should be able to open your speech document and follow along with your speech if I am so inclined. Finally, having a few extra cards in the speech document is NOT abuse. I expect you to have a little extra evidence if you have the time to further your arguments. There really is no fine line here as I have heard some complain, you will definitely know the difference of what I am referring to when you open a speech document that is double or triple the size of a normal speech document.
Background / Experience
I debated (CX/Policy) 4 years at West Jordan High School. After High School, I debated NDT at Weber State. As I mention to all teams that ask my paradigm, I am old school tabula rasa and open to just about anything (except truly offensive/abusive behavior/material). I have yet to encounter a person I could not flow in terms of speed. Clarity obviously matters and if I cannot understand you I will say something like "Clear". You can basically go as fast as you can speak, so long as you are clear. Also, reading analyticals (or non-evidence tags) at supersonic speeds are pretty hard to catch, I would suggest that you explain those types of tags/arguments.
LINCOLN DOUGLAS
During high school I competed in LD when I was not doing policy debate. For me, the best way to win my ballot is to make sure you frame any criteria and value into context with the main arguments you feel like you are winning. I also caution competitors that ignoring value and criteria is risky on my flow because it looks as if you concede that and I will interpret arguments based upon the conceded value/criteria of your opponent. That presents a serious uphill obstacle to winning your argument. As my experience is primarily policy based, I can flow anything that LD debates present.
- Theory - I like well developed theory arguments
- Kritiks - I believe I have a pretty good understanding of most critical arguments. However, that does not mean that I will fill in the blanks for you if you do not fully develop your advocacy.
- Critical Aff - I am ok with as long as it is well developed and provides a mechanism for your opponent to participate.
- Framework - I understand FW args from both Policy and LD style debates. What I have encountered the most is participants who do not understand the blocks they are reading.
- Topicality - I have a great understanding of "T" and all of its standards/voters/impacts. I'd suggest not reading T if the Aff has not read a plan.
- Disclosure - I could care less if there arguments are in the wiki or not. With that said, disclosure does take a bite out of fairness impacts (I am not saying I will not consider fairness, but if something has been in the wiki for 2 months, it's going to weigh against claims of fairness).
- Flex Time - As long as everyone agrees to it I am fine with it.
- 1AR Flexibility - I like many judges understand the time constraints on a 1AR. I am willing to give them lots of leeway on covering all arguments made by the NC. However, I still expect enough argumentation to be made that allows the negative rebuttal to understand the "gist" of the aff argument. In effect, it puts the neg "on notice" as to what the aff is arguing. This is not an excuse for blip arguments though. Remember grouping and combining arguments is your friend during this speech.
Order of importance / Round Evaluation
So this is a somewhat problematic area to write about. The first thing to say is that each round is unique and evaluation is therefore unique. I may have a process I usually follow to determine the "winner" of the round but that does not mean I am grounded in any specific approach. That means everything is debatable and subject to the participants within any given round. Outside of this, I (like nearly every judge I have worked with) look for the easiest place to write a ballot. So, if you drop some kind of voter on the flow I may use that as an excuse to write the ballot and get out of doing a lot of evaluation to determine which arguments win over others. With that said things usually look like this
Level 1: Framework -> Theory -> Value/Criteria
Level 2: Kritik -> AC/NC -> Counterplans -> DAs
Another way to think about my approach is to consider the theoretical aspects of how I should evaluate the substantive aspects of the advocacies made during the round. Also, the levels are more important then where the categories are listed above, but I usually find that FW leads me to understand theory and Val/Crit arguments. Usually a K precedes the aff case, etc.
POLICY DEBATE
I am very relaxed and flexible with regards to Cross-Ex, prep time (stopping when the jump drive is out), speakers keeping their own time, etc. I really like the debate to be controlled by the debaters with me as an observer rendering a final decision. With that said, if it seems like you are abusing prep time or other round mechanics I may voice my concern and your speaks will reflect my questions about your behavior.
With the philosophy of letting the debaters decide how the round rolls, I am open to any judging paradigm, all theory and weighted arguments. In my hay-day my partner and I were theory hounds. Kritik's did not exist, but if they did we have would have run them. We loved counter plans, T, counter-warrants, Justification and just about anything else you can imagine. If those arguments are done well, the debate is a real pleasure to observe. I constantly hear varsity debaters make claims regarding dropped arguments. If you do not direct the flow yourself, do not tell me that the other team dropped/conceded an argument. Without directing the flow, you really have no idea where I put arguments. Frankly, I am surprised by the number of varsity competitors I observe that fail to actually direct the flow. In yonder years, this was really the only way you could make a claim that an opponent dropped an argument and why a judge should consider it on the ballot.
For 2AR/2NR, spend 20-30 seconds summarizing the key positions and voters and explain why you win. It's weird to me how many final rebuttals miss this very important aspect of debate. Always tell the judge in the last few seconds why you are winning the debate. If you leave it up to the judge entirely, you may not get the result you hope for. Keep in mind, I vote off my flow and will not do work for either team in terms of advancing/understanding arguments. I figure that if you don't want to take the time to explain your argument, why should I take the time to build it up on the ballot or my flow.
One more thing... during my heyday, particularly in college, we actually flowed evidence warrants as well as taglines. I am funny that way, I still do that. You would be amazed how much I get on my flows in high school rounds. To that end, DO NOT mumble your evidence to me otherwise I do not consider it introduced in the debate and therefore will not consider it when rendering my decision. If I do not have your warrant, I do not consider it. Also, if I catch you power-tagging, clipping or any other patently abusive behavior you can expect a loss and very low speaks.
If you have any other questions, just ask before the round. Also, you are welcome to approach me after rounds and I will give you as much feedback as I can recall.
LONG VERSION:
I did 4 years of debate in high school, mostly I did extemp, policy, and ld, so I’m familiar with how debate rounds actually function. I LIVE FOR a good fw debate and love to vote on fw, that’s what comes first in importance in debate so please use it lol. Also if you don’t have anything else to say, you can end the time there, there’s no point continuing on if you have nothing else to say. I love a good voters at the end with some impact calc so I can weigh that. I’m totally fine with progressive and traditional. If you’re running something weird tho, please please explain it well—it’s never fun when you expect me to know all your weird links when I am a dying college student and I don’t have the time to know everything about your obscure k or whatever. When spreading slow on your tags so I know what you’re saying. I also love a good clean debate. If you can help it, go straight down the flow so everything is organized. I love some good organization:) good luck!
SHORT VERSION:
• did debate, experienced
• FW debate is preferred
• stop your time when you’re done, don’t drag on
• progressive and traditional is good
• weird links and k’s, pls explain well
• slow down on tags
• be organized
•Confident presentation/vocal presence.
•Well sourced arguments/warrants.
•Witty and well thought out refutations/counter arguments
•I am open to a variety of arguments.
•(LD) Counter-plans that can reveal grey areas in an otherwise black and white argument style.
•As with how judges should be, the key to winning my vote ultimately is persuasion.
Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.
The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.
If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.
Have fun
If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com
I debated for 4 years for West High School in Salt Lake City, Utah and competed locally and nationally. I am now a junior at the University of Utah.
Substantively I will evaluate anything. I primarily ran policy args and Ks when I debated, which means you should probably weigh arguments, make extensions, and have clear warrants for every argument.
I generally find tricks and theory to be less persuasive. That said, I default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the arg.
I do not coach and am not familiar with the current topic. You will make the round much easier for me to evaluate if you clearly explain your arguments and impact them well.
Speed is fine, but remember to slow down on taglines and authors. Have fun!
Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns
Experience:
I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (10 years).
I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.
Debate specific items:
I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.
I do not want to be on the email chain. This is a communication activity and I will only evaluate what I hear in round. It is your responsibility to be clear.
This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.
Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.
I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.
Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.
If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.
Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.
Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.
Things to do Speech and Debate:
Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).
Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.
Do the leg work for me.If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.
Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.
Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.
Things to avoid:
Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.
"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.
Stealing Prep Time.
The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.