Harrisburg Big Questions Ambush
2022 — Sioux Falls, SD/US
BQ Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI have debated through high school and in college for my experience in judging and competing
Now that all of that is established, you obviously want to know specifics on your event. Well, I've got you covered.
ALL DEBATE FORMATS:
Email Chain: I would like to be added if it is created, my email is ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu
Public Forum:
Philosophy: I will prioritize the flow for voting before all else, as I see it debate is a game and flow is the only fair way to keep my hands off the decision as much as possible
Tech>Truth, however the more shaky an argument is the less it takes to address it. (Ex. Cutting the NSA surveillance leads to the end of the world because of Swiss Physics)
Tabula rasa in round, but be aware I often know the literature on topics so I can better help you and your partner be better throughout the topic.
Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.
Crossfire: I will not weigh arguments made in cross unless they are brought up in a main speech.
Front lining: For the first speaking team this should be done in summary, the second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal, or else my ballot is written after that assuming they don't fumble the bag.
Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if all of their impacts come true we still win and be right, then carry that through each speech, you've won my ballot.
New Arguments in Summary: Don't do it :)
Final Focus: Really crystallize the round in this speech. You only have 2 minutes so don't panic to extend the whole flow, my ink is already placed. In this speech tell me the thing standing that without a doubt can't be objected to by anyone viewing the round's flow. The final focus gets overlooked far too much and I think that's a tragedy.
Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry
- Blatant Racism or Sexism
- Taking way, way too much time to find a card
- Technical difficulties over online
Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.
Plans/Counterplans: I will listen to them in the sense that I will not actively cover my ears or mute my computer, but just know that the pro doesn't need to have a defined plan and you can't propose a counterplan as the CON according to section 4 of the PF rulebook so, don't do it :)
Critiques/K arguments: I am not and will not claim to be familiar with the current literature surrounding K arguments. Unless a resolution is truly vile in nature, I will often default to not weighing the K argument at all.
Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I won't weigh it at all. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9.9/10 times ill go with the ladder.
Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory
- Trigger Theory
Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, adding personality to your speeches outside of the cards and the written words is the way.
Any other questions just ask at the beginning of round
LD:
Philosophy:
I will vote on the flow, tech>truth, and all that. Something to know, however, is the shakier an argument made is the easier it is for weak opposition to it being enough to make me look away from it.
Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.
Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at 1NC and 2AR. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.
Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry
- Blatant Racism or Sexism
- Taking way, way too much time to find a card
- Technical difficulties over online
K Arguments: Sure, there aren't many rules barring this and while I won't claim to be constantly in the know on the climate and style of K debate, I think that especially in a format debating moral grounds that gives a platform for these arguments to be heard.
Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I will be less likely to weigh as a priority. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9/10 times ill go with the ladder.
Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory
- Trigger Theory
- Speed
Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.
Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge
Big Questions:
Framing: I think one of the most important aspects of a format predicated on very broad questions is to give a starting ground and agree on what ground the debate is to be. Otherwise it's ships passing in the night and I have to put my opinion far more than you'd like. Defenition is also huge, and making sure in first CX the level of agreement on Defenitions should be prioritized.
Philosophy:Tech is still my main way to vote, however it is just as equivalent to the truth and coherence of the claims. Won arguments that are choppy w/ a not so consistent narrative are harder for me to hang a hat on.
Proving your side correct is just as important as proving the other side wrong. Many times I see particularly NEG teams place burdens and by consolidation say the other side hasn't met so we win. However the nature of inverse resolution also applies to burdens. Thus it may be true they didn't meet their burden, but also prove that you did meet your burden.
Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at Rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.
Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge
_________________
Speech/Interp:
I always found that speech paradigms were redundant because there isn't a way to cater your speech to me unless somehow you edit your intro or something. I will say this on the matter as my top 5 biggest things
Ennunciation
Characterization for Interp, Professionalism for speech
Use of Space/Blocking
Memorization
Cutting for Interp/Chosen Sources for speech
Interp Specific: Loud does not equal sad/emotion. Loud sometimes can equal funny, but please if at all possible have emotion be true to human nature. If I hear sad news I don't immediately grab a bullhorn and breakdown in hysteria, it is much more likely and relatable for any onlooker to your piece that emotion comes in subtle shades like the tone of the character's voice, the facial expressions, the body language, so many more things than the volume of the words being said.
If you ever have any questions or want further explanation of a decision I made or how to improve in your given category, just reach out to me at my email ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu
I've judged a lot of NLD lately but most of this holds true for VLD. Long story short, make sure you're debating LD, not 1-on-1 policy. Don't drop your framework; it's what makes LD so special. You need a criterion; it's your measuring stick. Tell me exactly why you win under one of the frameworks; it doesn't necessarily have to be yours. I very frequently hear a familiar laundry list in rebuttals: "I win on scope, I win on magnitude, I win framework debate...". Asserting it doesn't make it true; explain your reasoning. Use your NR/2AR to frame the round for me.
If you have a "minimizing xyz", "reducing xyz", etc. VC, you have a solvency burden, or at least need to demonstrate some harm reduction.
There is a lot of overlap between "students who want to spread" and "students whom I can't understand since they are stumbling over every other word" -- I'm around a traditional 6/circuit 3 on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. I am a fast talker myself, but I want to actually hear your case and arguments and feel better-informed after the round. Debate should be open to everyone, not just schools with full-time prep teams.
I am a former LD assistant coach and judge with experience in LD, Parli, and BQ. Clash is critical-- don't talk past each other. If your opponent has the most ludicrous case ever known to humankind but you don't attack it, they're probably winning. Open to progressive arguments for sure but you need clash. Fairly familiar with philosophy. Respect your opponent in and after the round.
I'm from Wisconsin (Go Cheesemakers!) where I did humorous and oratory since my school didn't have a debate program. I went to Penn and did parli debate. Lived in South Dakota for three years and now back in Philadelphia.
- Debate background:
- Judged High school debate for (9 years);
- Assistant debate coach for 2 years.
2. Judging:
- I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
- I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery
I am a traditional public forum debater, so don’t spread or try any Nat. Circuit methods because they won't work in PF for me. Go join Policy debate if that’s your style.
I currently debate for JHS, so I am pretty well-versed on the PF topic.
Evidence clash and warranting are essential to me, and good speaking skills will help you a lot.
LD: I had a very brief stint in LD my first year; I don't do it anymore. Treat me like a lay judge.
Good luck if you have me in LD.
Pray to god if you have me in Congress.
Do both if you have me in Policy.
History (Humble brag commence) - Debated PF 4 years of HS through Harrisburg, relatively successful on the nat circuit, very successful SD debate circuit
1. my biggest critique on current PF debate is how unethical I have seen it be, with that being said it will be very hard to win my ballot as an unethical debater ie. lying, bullying, ect. -and if I see this as a real issue your coach will be notified so tread lightly-
2. I value the flow, I judge off the flow, the only way you can lose my ballot is if you lose the flow (Or ethically listed above) If there are judges on the panel that are lay I understand you choosing to go for their ballot as I did the same as a debater, I will still vote off of the flow first but do not let yourself get into the mindset that you cannot win my ballot
3. I love helping debaters understand why they lost or how to improve, ASK QUESTIONS PLEASE (love my time to shine haha). Definitely stop me after round and ask why you lost or how to improve or shoot me an email @ cassyherd02@icloud.com I promise you will get a hefty explanation of my ballot (Based on certain tournament rules I may not be able to if disclosure or feedback is not allowed but my inbox is still open after tournament or when you get w/l)
Tech stuff
4. I do not believe in sticky defense. ie. I will not just extend things that your opponents didn't respond to, you have to do the work for me and tell me what I need to extend and why
5. To critique myself, I am not good with names and dates so with your extensions remind me what it is they said that was so important so I can give you the extension
6. Please do a line-by-line with a roadmap rather than voters in summary/ FF, it is a lot easier to flow. If you choose to do voters I may not catch where you're at on the flow, if it doesn't make it to my flow its not voted on
7. Just calling something a turn doesn't make it a turn, with this you must explain why that specific argument wins you their impacts or a new impact you present, simply stating "They drop x y z turn" doesn't mean much to me, tell me what turn, why its so massive, and why it wins you the round for it to become a voting issue on my ballot
8. Lastly, impact calc. are you winning on magnitude, scope, clarity of impact, ect? If you don't tell me how I am voting then I have to interfere and make that choice myself which I don't like to do. If your judge has to interfere at all your job isn't done
Hello debaters,
I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:
-
Flow-Centric Evaluation:
- I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
- Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
- I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.
-
Impacts Matter:
- I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
- Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.
-
Technical Proficiency:
- I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
- However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.
-
Clarity and Signposting:
- Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
- Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.
-
Adaptability:
- I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
- Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.
-
Framework and Weighing:
- Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
- Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.
-
Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:
- I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.
-
Respect and Sportsmanship:
- Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
- I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.
-
Evidence Quality:
- Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
- Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.
Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.