Oologah Winterfest
2020 — NSDA Campus, OK/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.
elibrennan@gmail.com YES, I'd like to be on the email chain (or i guess we may just use Zoom to transfer speech docs).
Evidence: I am happy, very happy, to prefer the team with the better evidence on key questions, you just need to explain why your evidence is superior: be clear about which evidence you want me to read, why I will find it superior, and why that matters for the overall strategic situation of the debate.I haven't been reading much evidence at all after debates because the approach to extending the evidence lacks substantive warranting. In those situations, I prefer to just compare warrants provided by the debaters- to see who did the better _debating_. All that said, I really do like that policy debate can create stable strategic advantages for better research and better interpretation of that research.
Framework: I'm sympathetic to Framework arguments mostly in situations where the Aff. is apparently trying to avoid substantive clash. Many debaters who specialize in, or rely on, framework arguments fail to convince me that they could not have anticipated, or developed answers to, the Affirmative's arguments. Developing substantive responses to widely different kinds of arguments seems like something we should each be good at. I often sense that debaters are just not interested in literature they claim to have been unable to anticipate. All that said, if you have a solid set of answers to the questions our community brings to the topic, and your opponent makes it unreasonably difficult/impossible to engage in those debates, please by all means go for framework. Winning the quality of education component is usually the key to that ballot for me.
K Debate: I like policy debate and critical debate. Do what you do best, and I'll follow. Adapting your blocks to the specifics of the Aff is the easiest way to improve your chances. For the Aff to weigh their advantages against a K, defending the knowledge claims is more reliable than theory arguments (for my ballot). A lot of teams are letting alternatives off the hook, which creates a tough debate for the Aff. Putting both offensive and defensive pressure on the Alternative is a more robust strategy, in my view, than a framework argument giving theoretical reasons I should ignore evidence against the Aff perspective.
Theory: A lot of theory debates are messy because debaters overly rely on their blocks. It gets blippy and lacks the kind of comparisons that make ballots reliable. I do understand, and am sympathetic to, theory positions that are necessary to keep the rest of the debate under control for your side. You often end up needing to go "all in" if the substantive debate gets out of control. Just be sure to debate "access" to the terminal impact of education in a clear and comparative way. I'm probably more sympathetic to process counterplans and solvency advocate arguments than most of my colleagues, in that I like these debates to be resolved with the best research, rather than the best spin.
Global advice: Think actively during the whole debate, find a way to create and enjoy moments of excellence, and respect your opponents (or at least the people they could be). Make whatever arguments you feel/think best. Take the time to explain your argument most comprehensively at the places you are most vulnerable- always contextualizing one step further than your opponent (they say 'purple', you say 'sun-drenched lavender').
Most of my decisions result from setting the 2nr against the 2ar, controlling for new args (esp. new 2ar args), checking evidence, defaulting to meta-arguments (comparisons) from debaters, and then imposing (i hate it as much as you do) meta-arguments where necessary.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have before, during, or after the debate.
*Sidequests: +.2 Speaker points on offer for the sickest burn on opposing authors.
K debate is the best, I really don't care what ypu run just convince me what I should be voting on. That being said mosts cps are abusive so I normally err towards aff.
spreading is fine, flash your evidence prior to speeches.
most likely wont vote on T
make sure to do some type of framing in your rebuttals
I debated policy through all four years of high school (one nats qual, regular circuit debate) so I'm most comfortable judging that debate format. I do have some experience in PF, but have never debated LD.
For CX:
Go as fast/slow as you want - all I ask is that you slow down a bit on tags/analytics
I'm a tab judge, so I'll listen to everything. However, here are some specifics:
K's - I understand them, but don't expect me to vote on high theory stuff unless it's explained well in-round. I haven't been in a ton of K debates, so this is one of my weaker areas.
Theory - See above, I will vote on it, but don't have much experience with it. You'll need to overcome a high threshold to get me to vote the other team down on theory.
T - Running T is good and Not a Time Suck. Not my favorite argument but an important one nonetheless.
CP's - Counterplns are good, but I'm open to AFF arguments that specific kinds are abusive. There needs to be a clear net benefit and it has to be competitive. Perms are convincing if there's no functional or textual competition or if there's no net benefit.
DA's - I'll vote on Disads all day. There should be clear impact work in the block or 2NR.
I will vote on any unconventional argument (Wipeout, SPARK, etc.) as long as it's debated well.
PF:
You can spread if you want. As I said earlier, I don't have a whole lot of experience with Public Forum, so I'll judge it based on the quality of argumentation.
Here's my email for any other questions (please add me to the email chain): shashwat@usc.edu
I have experience at state finals level competition in high school and have judged for many years. I am a government lawyer and policymaker by profession who works on equity and racial justice issues in housing, urban planning, and financial services.
I generally default to stock issues unless I am persuaded to adopt another paradigm, which I will do if the round goes to a place where that is not a fair framework to apply. If that's the case, please crystalize the voting issues and framework you want me to apply.
I prefer to vote on impacts, framework, or philosophy when I can rather than minor dropped cards or minor procedural abuse arguments unless those issues are significant. Dropped arguments of course are inherently significant.
I will keep up with spreading if it is clear and well sign-posted.
There is a line between aggressive, strong debating for your position and rude and dismissive behavior to the other team which I like to see respected.
Please add me to the email chain: jwwylie@gmail.com