Region 8 Tournament
2020 — Salem, UT/US
Debate (LD and PF) Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideUpdated for NCFL.
Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.
I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:
1. Rule/Evidence Violations.
If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.
As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.
2. Being Offensive or Rude.
I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.
3. Pre-Fiat Impacts
Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.
4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts
Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.
Misc. Things:
- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.
- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.
- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.
- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).
- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)
PF:
- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.
- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.
- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.
- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.
- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.
LD:
- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.
- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.
Policy:
- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.
- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.
- Tag team cross is fine.
- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).
- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.
Congress:
- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.
- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.
As a judge I come into the room the least educated person in the room- waiting to be informed and swayed. In LD debate, fiat in an important principle for me- I want to hear the argument for WHY something should be done- not if it CAN be done nor do I care about a plan or counter-plan. Evidence and definitions are also key and something I listen for in making my decision.
Debate:
I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.
Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.
Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.
For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.
Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.
I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.
Speech:
Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.
I did PF in high school, graduated in 2019. I was assistant coach at Salem Hills for a year, but it's been a while since I've been in the debate realm. I should be able to hold my own just fine in any round, but let me know if you have any specific questions about my paradigms.
Good luck in all your rounds!!!
In-round Preferences:
- Weigh. I listen for good impact weighing that is connected to your value criterion.
- Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
- Weigh.
- Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
- I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
- Weigh.
- Please be consistent with your warranting.
- Offense must be in summary and final focus.
- Weigh. Communicate impact or measure.
- Do not make assumptions.
- Do not say racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
Miscellaneous:
- I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
- Do not steal prep time.
- Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
- Weigh.
Make it the best debate possible. Be respectful of your opponent I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.
I'm a pretty straightforward judge. Be clear and concise in speeches, carry your points and contentions through the round as well as your opponent's. Be prepared and professional, I prefer debaters time themselves and don't use gendered pronouns in referring to their opponent. Along with that, I urge for political correctness in the round, arguing something that is explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will not help your case. Beyond that have fun and take it easy.
Bio:
I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City. I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.
I did PF when the summary was 2 minutes long and most people were liars.
Broadly Applicable Tea:
I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.
I occasionally judge policy and LD. Consider me a lay judge in these instances.
A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.
Err silly and down to earth over dominant and aggressive.
If you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold.
Impact comparison is very important to me. The team that makes the most "even if" statements tends to win my ballot.
Resolving competing claims is important. The team that makes the most "prefer our evidence/empirics/warrant" statements also tends to win my ballot.
I am not impressed by teams which analytically claim to "pre-req," "link-in," or "short-circuit" their opponents' offense. These arguments are often strategic, but are strongest when predicated on warrants and data from quoted evidence.
The probability of an argument being true in my decision is derived from the happenings of the debate. I do not think it is a form of impact comparison, nor do I have some lower threshold for answers to arguments I personally disbelieve. If an argument is silly, it should be easy to answer.
Arguments you expect me to vote on have to be in summary and final focus.
Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.
I will never vote on death good.
Disclosure and Email Chains:
All cards must include full citations and clearly indicate the cited text. These are the NSDA rules; anyone who does not meet them should strike me.
Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs for constructive and rebuttal. Title it something logical and add gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.
I won't read the email chain unless I am instructed to read a specific piece of contested evidence.
Prep ends when the email is sent.
You should be marking your doc during your speech. If you choose not to, then stop the round after each speech to do so, I expect you to take prep.
If you think you have done a particularly stellar job disclosing, say so. If I agree, I will boost your speaks by a few tenths.
The K:
I have coached K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting.
That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach. Consider me a lay judge in this realm.
Theory:
I tend to think that paraphrasing is probably bad and that disclosure is probably good.
I dislike how specific some of the interps I've seen recently have been. I don't have strong opinions about open-source, rebuttal disclosure, round reports, author quals, or the like. I want teams to disclose and quote evidence, but I'd strongly prefer not to evaluate theory arguments that demand more than that.
I find these debates painfully boring, as they are generally regressive regurgitations of arguments I've seen someone else articulate more persuasively. Speaker points will reflect my disdain for the strategic use of theory.
IVIs:
Nope.
I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:
1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.
2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.
3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.
Lincoln Douglas
I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.
I am a flow judge. I need signposting and don't drop arguments unless you explain why it is no longer relevant. Don't look at your opponent in round, specifically cx. Don't use gendered pronouns to refer to your opponents (use they/them or "my opponent/s"). Above all else, anything explicitly racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, etc. will not help your case--and depending on the severity I will stop the round.