Johns Creek Wellstone Opener
2022 — Atlanta, GA/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideShort-pre-round version: Speech and Debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former high school policy debater in the mid 1980s. Since re-entry into the activity via UTNIF in 2018, I have worked hard to learn innovations in debate since my time in high school. My paradigm is still evolving. Even though I am willing to listen to anything, debaters must have clash and explanation. - following Toulmin (Claim, Warrant, Explanation). I flow, so I expect you to signpost, label, and explain.
Longer, working on prefs, version: If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I am probably not.
I expect to receive an email chain for 1A and 1N at deguirek@calhounschools.org
My team: I coach on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. My team has transitioned from a policy only team to an LD only team. Now, the team writes most of their own arguments, but my varsity teams run a lot of Ks. Understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I will understand it without your thorough explanation of the argument.
Likes/dislikes: I teach debate because I love debate, the community, and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective and vote for teams because I think their arguments won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give you as clear a critique as I possibly can and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.
LARPing: I can deal with LARPing as long as I can follow it. If you spread through the analytics or don't signpost or don't weigh the args, don't expect me to vote for it.
Weirdness:I do not like performance-based actions of any kind. No challenging opponents to any kind of physical altercations, especially tortilla fights (don't ask.)
My email: deguirek@calhounschools.org
Procedural Stuff
Email chain: blako925@gmail.com
Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com
Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.
1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room
If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point
Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.
Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation
Topic Knowledge
I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.
I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE
I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE
I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE
I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE
I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.
Spreading
I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS
My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.
While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.
In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.
No Plan Text & Framework
I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:
- I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
- I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
- As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).
All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.
Tech vs. Truth
I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.
Reading Evidence
I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.
This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.
That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.
Case
I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.
By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.
Disads
Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.
Topicality
Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.
One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.
Counterplan
I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.
I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.
I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.
A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.
Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.
Kritiks
I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.
Theory
If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.
I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.
Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.
Extra Points
To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.
I'm a freshman at Georgia Tech, I debated 7 years through AUDL for middle school, NSDA and GFCA (Georgia's local circuit) for high school, 4 years policy, and 3 years LD. If you have any questions feel free to reach out.
Email: npeickman@gmail.com
Pronouns: He/Him
TLDR:
Policy=Phil>Ks>T/Theory>Tricks (but I can buy just about anything if ran well)
Don't be abusive, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. That includes beating down new debaters, we do this to learn and to have fun.
Put me on email chains for speech docs (please)
General:
Clash is key. Please debate with each other and not at each other. Weigh impacts, they can be abstract or as out there as you want them to be as long as you tell me why I should care about them most in round. Without clash you will not win the debate, your speaks will not be good, and the debate will not be educational or fun. Explain link and impact chains, flow, and engage with the other debater.
I am fine with spreading but if you're in a round where your opponent is not, please don't or at least slow down. Have an engaging debate instead of a contest of who can talk the fastest. Clarity>Speed always, also please slow down on tags. Speed can be a useful tool to make more arguments and read more evidence. With more words, you should be able to have more clash and more nuanced arguments; if you aren't getting that out of spreading, don't do it.
Tech>Truth with some limitations. Along the same lines of not being abusive, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. yourself, don't be in your cases either. I will not vote on arguments that are inherently discriminatory, abusive, or like objectively harmful.
I don't care if you stand, what you wear, if you swear, etc.
Funny and relaxed debates are good debates, we do this for fun.
Just don't be mean :)
LD:
I have debated both traditional and progressive LD I'm fine with both. If you are going in a more traditional direction please weigh to your framework heavily and connect your case into a cohesive story. This also goes for if you are running a more prog case against a trad debater, it's not that hard to relate your arguments into a framework (if you can't do that you shouldn't win anyway). For straight prog debate, I did policy I'm okay judging a more policy style round, you still need to debate well.
Do a good job of weighing and explaining, especially for obscure FWs. Again make you're case as cohesive as possible within your framework.
K's are fine but similar to Phil require good explanations and weighing. Please understand the lit base even a little bit before reciting to me. It will make you debate K's better.
Theory-I'll vote for just about anything but it needs to be well warranted and weighed, RVIs are cool, Friv is cool but I won't generally vote for anything out of round (it is possible though). DTDs need to be thoroughly warranted and explained. I lean more toward DTA over DTD if there wasn't any abuse occurring. Also, DTD exists partially to actually keep abusive and discriminatory practices out of our activity so like have a little respect for it. ROBs need to be very well explained to be won.
Tricks are ok, I don't like them but I will vote for them occasionally.
Hey folks, I'm Aidan Gold. I use any pronouns (please mix up which ones you use if you can. I like they/them least if you must stick to one set.) Contact at aidancgold27@gmail.com
I debated LD for 2 years with Sequoyah High School.
LD Prefs:
Flex prep & open cross are fine. If you're concerned about if I'll vote on something ask me before the round.
1 -- LARP if it's good
2 -- Trad
3 -- Theory but only if it's actually abuse, Post-Fiat Ks, Phil
5 -- Pre-fiat K, T, Non-topical affs, Phil
6 or strike -- Trix, bad theory
The long version
I'll evaluate anything so long as it's warranted and isn't violent (x-ist).
Tricks are tough with me because I might miss them, especially if they're spread.
Non Negotiables
Automatic L for violent arguments.
One winner one loser.
If you read "eval after x speech" you have to win it after the round.
Speed
Speed's fine, but clarity first. If I can't understand what you're saying I'll give you three "clears" then I'm not flowing it and I'll start playing Minecraft.
Gut check yourself. If you're against a novice don't spread them out, that's mean.
Send the doc if it's dense analytics or paraphrased.
Tricks
Tricks just aren't entertaining to me. You can read them, but I probably won't vote on them especially since I most likely won't hear them.
Theory
Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse. Ad-hom theory won't be evaluated. Reasonability is an option (though I default to counterinterps) especially if it's an accessibility issue (misgendering, bad case formatting, etc.) Read interps at conversational speed please.
Phil
Phil is really fun! I love phil rounds. The reason it's so low on my prefs is because phil is very hard for me to actually judge effectively. If you read phil, make everything as crystal clear as you can and minimize jargon.
If your "philosophy framework" is actually trix and you try and pull a fast one you will lose the round.
Topicality
I'm not too well versed in T but if you have to debate T in round just explain everything really clearly. It's a 5 on prefs but if you're against a wall just read it. Make impacts clear too.
Kritiks
I'll evaluate any K if it's explained well. Not too familiar with pomo and I've not read that much K lit, but K rounds are dynamic and I like them. I vote less on aff Ks generally but that shouldn't totally dissuade you.
Post-fiat is higher because I can't wrap my head around judging pre-fiat, not because pre-fiat is a worse kind of K. If you think you can read a pre-fiat K in front of me and I'll get it, go for it. I'd ask before the round first.
LARP
I find LARP rounds easy to judge, just explain why you're winning to me. If your warrants suck I'm not buying it, if your framework is incoherent or incongruent with your case I'm not buying it, etc. Read plan texts at conversational speed please.
Traditional (Read if you're novice)
Clash with your opponent, weigh, give voters, collapse on arguments in later speeches. The usual.
If you read arguments about the US constitution being the pinnacle of law and ethics, know that I am an openly queer judge and that you are upholding something that is weaponized against queer people
Read the card name before the card, flow is so much easier this way.
If you're both running the same framework don't do framework debate. Words in the resolution don't mean principles of good ("ought" is not a moral obligation.) Aff must solve in some way. Ask for numbers if and only if the impact is utilitarian, otherwise you look like a burger.
If your opponent is reading something more "circuit"y like a kritik then saying "no value/vc" or "this is some weird theory nonsense" will lose you speaks. I know the argument is difficult but engage with it as best you can and you'll keep your speaks. This happened to me a few times in my career, so I get it.
General principles
Extend all the way through speeches if you can, probably note what you're collapsing to specifically. If your warrants are really bad I'll tank speaks, especially if it's probability.
Various other things
Condo is fine but if you get turned you can't kick anymore and if your advocacies conflict with each other I'm ignoring all conflicts.
Disclosure good but disclosure theory is silly most of the time. If you have an actual impact I'll vote on it. If disclosure is read on someone who doesn't know what the wiki is I am not voting on it.
Newer debaters: I will not allow you to concede case. I did it far too many times in my career and I regretted it nearly every time. Do not give up, even if you're sure the round is a lost cause. You might be surprised by how well you engage with the opponent.
Prefs
Again, I'll vote on anything, but below are what I'll default to.
No RVIs, Yes CIs, presumption goes neg, T>t>K>Substance, TT>comparative worlds.
How to get good speaks
- Be funny
- Drip
- If you're against a novice try to give them a good round
- If you know you're gonna lose the round by the 2AR be funny about it
How to get bad speaks
- Aggression in CX, not like assertiveness but aggression.
- Spreading against novices
- Prioritizing speed over clarity
Number one things is to be respectful to you opponent. After that just make sure you’re not forgetting framework debate and doing plenty of weighing.
PF
I’m not flowing crossfire so make sure to bring it up. Nothing to o complicated just make sure to have lots of clash and weigh.
RAP Paradigm:
Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are counterproductive. It's much more helpful to pay attention, and react, to your opponent's arguments than to be writing your next speech during the round.
Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence. Please do not present evidence from biased sources, e.g., don't quote from Osama bin Laden or Fox "News."
Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.
Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate public-policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.
Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points because this is not only easier to follow but also better for you. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track. When refuting an argument, don't waste time by repeating it extensively and thereby reinforcing it.
Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.
Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).
Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, not using all of your time (particularly during speeches but also during questioning) answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time (or after the round has ended), or asserting without specificity that "We won everything" or "They dropped everything," etc. Also, avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.
Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.
Questioning. If you want to improve as a debater--at any level--the biggest bang for your buck is to prepare effective questions. Yes, that means having a list of sequential questions prepared in advance, based on anticipated arguments; you can clash by selecting from among these as well as developing additional questions in round.
My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF primarily and judge L-D predominantly. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor AP courses such as History and ELA as well as SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.
The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. (I try not to judge Policy because I still value persuasive delivery; exchanging cases is no substitute for that.) Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:
PF—
--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s three-minute speech.
--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.
--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.
--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.
--Do not waste my time, and try to extend yours, by overindulging in asking for evidence.
--I'm not a fan of "frontloading," and it makes no sense whatsoever to do so in the 2AC when your side is the first to speak.
--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.
--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.
L-D—
--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum. The trite pain/pleasure quote is seldom on point and time better spent elsewhere.
--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions. In fact, quite the contrary.
--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).
--Leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in the Neg Constructive for refutation; not doing this is the biggest reason why Negs lose in L-D. Likewise, I'm not a fan of "frontloading" in the 1AR anyway, and do so at your peril unless you leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in that speech for refutation.
--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.
--Even though you are not required to present a formal, detailed plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.
Congress--
--I worked on Capitol Hill for two summers, once for a Senator and once for a Congressman, when oratorical skills were valued. Please treat the event with respect.
--A good Congress speech is like a mini-Extemp speech: hook; organize and number your reasons; use qualified evidence (quotes, data) in support; circle back to hook.
--Clash is critical, as in any form of debate; unless yours is the sponsorship speech, refer to previous speakers.
--I keep track not only of speeches but also of questions, especially strong ones.
--Do not try to curtail debate prematurely; give others the opportunity to speak.
I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.
Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...
Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.
Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.
Worlds Schools - Do not spread.
Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.
If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.
mrobinson43@gmail.com
Excited to judge you if you are reading this! Debate is super cool and it is my life, I hope that it is a big part of your life too and this is a learning experience for both you all and me as even people in the position of educators have new things to learn from these debates. Feel free to introduce yourself and talk to me like a person because
joshuasp.debate@gmail.com
---
Recent Affiliations:
Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy)
Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)
I prefer to be called "jsp" or "Josh" to judge.
---
AI Rule: auto loss.
---
PF:
Frontlining is good, line by line is good, weighing is good, weighing should start by the summary at the latest. Uniqueness and Internal Links matter just as much as the link/impact. If any of these terms are new to you talk to your coach or I before/after the round. Defense isn't sticky it's slippery.
---
Policy:
I adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
I am 50/50 for framework, flow on paper and don't look at the doc. Just like... make good arguments. Use what you are good at, don't use what you are not.
I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear, my laptop will likely be closed till the rebuttals, I will yell "clear" or "loud" as much as needed but I would rather not have to and I will just stop if I get tired of saying it - speed will always be fine - clarity though is just as important
Inserting rehighlighting is okay, I will read it during prep, please explain what the recutting means though
I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block
It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)
I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)
My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption
Tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle
Hello My name is Russ Thompson. I am a senior in high school and I have been in debate since the sixth grade.
Speed: I am able to somewhat listen to spreading but I still might not be able to hear everything.
types of arguments I like: I personally prefer debates that have a fair amount of clash between frameworks but I will vote based off of who provides a better/more coherent argument. I also like debaters explaining and fleshing out arguments later in the debate. Specifically, what I mean is that a debater should essentially simplify an argument to the best of their ability in the rebuttal, that way the judge is able to make a decision on who provided the most coherent argument better. Although this wont make or break the argument in my book, it just makes it harder for the judge to understand.
Theory and ROBs: I don't really like theory and ROBs (especially ROBs I am of the opinion that the judge should debate who presented the best argument that is relevant to the topic instead of something like whoever educates the best) but some theory might be able to persuade me given how it is argued.
If the debater has any questions on specifics before the round please let me know before the round begins. I will try to answer the questions as in depth as I can.
email- jt895174@gmail.com