Paradigm

Adrian Duran Rey
Hired Judges

Adrian Duran Rey

1 Year out from Central Florida (Dr. Phillips High School), Currently '27 at Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania)

Mostly competed local/trad circuit plus trad nats (nsda + ncfl) cause of finances, but learned prog through other people, free camps, and some competing

Overall stuff:

To me LD is two parts, 1. how do I evaluate the round? 2. Who is best reaching that evaluation? This is how I'm going to look at everything, trad, phil, theory, Ks, etc

Layering is really important when there's a lot at play and I need to figure out how I evaluate the round, so if you're reading theory, you need to do some work on this.

I don't use speech doc, if it's not cohesive/understandable in speech i'm not flowing it. i can understand spreading well, but if you're getting to the point were it's non-stop double breaths or falling over every word, please slow down

please use running prep instead of a specific amount

For Novice or Trad LD:

If you don't know what all the stuff below means, don't worry, it's not for you.

Whatever you read in front of me I should be able to understand as long as you make it make sense.

I'm fine with spreading (talking very quickly) as long as both competitors are fine with it (if it's in a novice division or overwhelmingly trad/local circuit).

yes email chain:

adrianaaron0119@gmail.com

prefs

1. Phil (kant and hobbes personal favorites) + topical trix (unique to topic) + tech trad debate

2. theory + funny tricks (a-z theory etc)

3. utill/larp + generic trix (resolved a prior, etc.)

4. k stuff (be very clear on thesis, theory of power, etc.)

5. non-tech trad debate (incoherent frameworks, no organization)

Strike: non-T stuff

Important Misc Notes

- Extend warrants!

I don't want to hear "we have evidence proving x" or "our evidence proves y claim and they don't have carded ev" Extend WHY your evidence proves x or y point and weigh it against your opponent's args

-Analytics

I love analytics, not everything needs or should be carded, just get into the warrant debate.

I'm doing parli (kinda) in college which is straight-up no evidence all analytics. Obviously, that's not how I'm judging LD, but well-warranted and explained analytics, especially for rebuttals, are great imo

-Organization

PLS NUMBER RESPONSES. Overview arguments are great, do them.

Phil

absolutely love it, my personal favorite and what I love running. ask me before round if u want to read me something more fringe and I'll tell u how much I know it so u can explain in round accordingly. Love metaethics debate and I have experience with it so go crazy, just show how ur metaethic model includes ur standard and excludes ur opp's.

Trix

Honestly they can be really fun, I like them more topical (i.e. actually being in-depth on the topic). I'll vote on abusive tricks if they're definitely winning but doesn't make round very interesting imo

Trad

Love trad debate so much when it's done well. Have a framework debate or concede opp's framework and win better offense under theirs. I will drop a speak if u tell me ur framework is a voter, tell me offense as a voter and why that offense outweighs under the framework.

Theory

I'm chill with it. Equity within the debate community is very important to me, so if you're from an established program and/or private school and read disclosure theory or something of the sort on a student who isn't, I'm not going to give any leeway at all whatsoever and your speaks will not make you happy.

Outside of that I'm down for most/all theory. I've read T a lot and it's good imo so just read it well. Also if ur justifying something that is def anti-small school/underprivileged debaters (util) by saying it helps small school debaters, I'm going to be critical on it (I'll still evaluate it fairly but my threshold on it will be low).

Util/Larp

I can evaluate it fairly and properly and will to the best of my abilities. Not my ideal round cause I don't really read or like reading util. Just make sure to do weighing and be direct on how ur winning access to impacts and it's totally fine. If it goes util v phil, I except the work done on it in terms of quality to be equal to any other phil debate so be ready to justify it well.

Note: I actually love heavy phil debates with util on one side but when they're done well. (Agency is defined by natural senses, the two brain stuff util ppl read against kant, etc)

K stuff

I've never read it in tournament round, I can evaluate it but honestly would not suggest it. Just do a lot of work on explanation. Also, I get irritated by K debaters ignoring everything on the flow by saying they're "higher layer".

Non-tech trad

I'll evaluate it as much as I can but expect it to be a coinflip cause these rounds are messy, try to work on making what ur framework is clear and how it weighs offense. Also work on weighing your impact as well as giving me a clear link chain as to how you win them.