What is up

I wrote my old paradigm when I was getting into judging after being out of the activity for 7 years (graduated high school in 2015). Apparently it made me seem like an old dad judge. After a couple years judging tournaments, including some finals and multiple bid-tournament out-rounds, I am ready to write an actual paradigm.

My philosophy of judging is that I do not matter, and it is my responsibility to stay out of your way. Judges are tools used by tab to facilitate the competition. My job is to write the correct RFD so that the results of the tournament best reflect the performances of the debaters. My threshold for intervening is likely also the point where I have to report you to tab. I don't want to talk about style or argument preferences because I think the best debates happen when both sides run their best stuff, and that can't always happen when the debaters are trying to cater their material to the judge. In lieu of preferences, I'll go over what I'm comfortable hearing. This will mostly apply to LD as there seems to be more style variation.

I was an LDer, and have experience with policy and public forum, both as a competitor and a judge. I'm comfortable with the theory debate as long as it's not used as a cudgel by circuit kids against kids who aren't about that life. I have no problem handing out a low-point win for being without honor. Please read a counter-interp so I don't have to do a bunch of work. If the pieces and parts are there, I don't mind informal shells. One benefit of me not being a coach is that I'm not paid to spend time thinking about debate. That means I don't have established beliefs on theory and meta-theory issues. For example, I don't know how I feel about RVIs- make the argument. I am comfortable with the K debate. If you're running a K: 1) Fully commit 2) Have a good enough handle on the material to defend and explain in CX. CX is where I find out you're running someone else's K. If you're running dense stuff, you still need to do all the work. I'm not going to fill in gaps for you just because I also read (past tense) Derrida. I've had to call "clear", I have not had to call "speed". Please don't try to speak faster than you're able to comfortably. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

I'm going to do my best to write the correct RFD. I'm not going to use the ballot as recourse against debate stuff I don't like (behaviors, not arguments). I will, however, use speaker points as recourse against debate stuff I don't like. If there is a clear skill/experience disparity, and you as the clearly superior debater slow it down, and provide a less-stressful educational experience for the other debater, I will give you the thirtiest thirty of all time. I will let you infer what the other side of that coin looks like. I'm not impressed by domineering behavior. I'm not impressed by debaters trying to lock down a CX like it's a criminal trial. I work in special education. Kids being rude to other kids is not something my blood pressure needs to be dealing with on a weekend. If I'm giving you the Kubrick stare during a round, reconsider your in-round disposition. I have never had to do this, and I don't want to ever. I love judging, I am honored to watch you debate; If you aren't doing anything wrong and I look mad, that's just my face.

Yours in Rock,

Grady

I am not too experienced in judging so please make all of your arguments understandable to a layman. Please make it abundantly clear what your framework is and how I, as your judge, should use it. In addition, I prefer much slower speaking speeds along with clarity in articulation. You can speak fast but if I am unable to understand you then I will not weigh that point. Lastly, in your consolidation and rationale, I would appreciate it if competitors could simplify the majority of arguments and points made throughout the debate.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

For all Speech events: I love learning new things and more about things I do know, so I generally find most speeches interesting, but regardless of topic or the event I am judging I am looking for a few specifics. Regardless of topic or event, I judge a speech based on how engaging it is to the audience. Also, while, I do not have preference for a specific formula for a speech, I do expect it to be easy to understand from one point to the next.

INF, USX, and USI: In addition to the above, I am looking for cited statements from reputable sources, so it is clear where your perspective and knowledge is coming from.

For the various interpretation events: In addition to the above, I am looking for the material presented to feel like the speaker wrote it themselves and are not just rehearsing what someone else wrote. In addition, it should always be clear who is speaking, characterization and blocking are important.

For Debate: I am going to be looking at the strength of the evidence you provide to prove your point, as well as overall persuasiveness of your argument both in presentation of arguments as well as how you answer crossX of your arguments. I do not like fast speaking. I try hard to take notes of points made, answered, and challenged by each team, if the speaker is going too fast I may miss something and you may not get due credit for a point made/answered/challenged. Lastly, and most important, I expect you to cite your sources.

Current Public Forum debater (Senior) at Beverly Hills High School.

For debate (mainly PF bc its just better :)

I’m fine with some speed, but if you plan on spreading, or talking at fast paces, give an off-time roadmap and I will allow that. Make contentions clear, make points clear, and any/all sources should be cited [Last name of author/year]. A source that is not cited in NSDA format may not count towards my decision and may not help your case....unless there is a specific tournament exemption (but don't stress about it).

How I decide a winner:
1) Quantifications: Unless you boldly choose to go with a deontological --or something similar-- framework, I want to hear quantifications. For example, if you tell me "more people will be arrested because of (insert resolution)" but do not tell me how many people have been, or will be --I.e a number--, chances are, I wont give that argument much weight. Quantifiable impacts are big for me.

2) Definitions and framework: You don't need either of these, but they usually will help your case (assuming they are the right choices). A good definition and framework goes a long way in building a bulletproof case that flows cleanly through. Keep in mind that definition must be in line with the wording of the resolution. Don't bend the wording of the resolution. That said, it's really only a beneficial thing, it won't hurt you if neither team blows me away with their framework and definitions.

3) Weight: Hey second speaker --or just speaker in the rare case I ever judge LD--! Listen up close! A good final focus --or 2NR/2AR-- usually means the difference for me.....and most people who have ever judged a round. Weigh the debate. Tell me what you offer, tell me what the opponent(s) offer(s), and tell me why your case/line of argumentation holds more weight. I can not make this clear enough. If you do not weigh the debate throughout, but more so in the final speech, you can say goodbye to the win (unless you are exceptionally compelling in the other portions of the debate).

Finally, use cross to your advantage, I WILL use this to decide a winner.

Other than that, just be respectful and honest.

For speech/congress:

Prefer less speed, as I’m really going to be finding the core of your points and not what they literally state.

Really get into why I should listen to you, tell me what you offer, and why you are undoubtedly correct.

Ask questions!!