Paradigm

Jason AlFord
Everglades HS Forensics

Background

I’ve been a debate coach since 2011—first at the middle school level, then managing debate operations as an assistant principal, and since 2020 doing what I love as the proud coach of Everglades HS Forensics in Miramar, FL.

Degrees: B.A. in English, B.S. in Biology, M.Ed. in Educational Leadership.
Judging Experience: Locals → Circuit → FFL → NSDA Nationals.
Coaching Credentials:

4× NSDA National Finalist Coach

3× State Champions (2022, 2023, 2025)

NSDA Speech School of Excellence 2023

Follow us on Instagram: @evergladesdebate

Rule #1 — Play Nice.

If cross gets rude, personal, or chaotic, I will obliterate your speaks. Debate is a community activity. You can clash hard without acting like the politicians you critique in-round. You’re the future—make it awesome.

General Approach to Argumentation & Evidence

I flow everything and do not join email chains.

Signpost clearly.

Don’t spread. Fast is fine; incomprehensible is not.

Quality > quantity. Ten shallow claims ≠ one well-warranted, well-explained position.

Warrants + analysis + impact = winning argument.
A stat dump isn’t persuasive if you don’t explain what it means and why it matters.

Evidence

I rarely call for cards, but you must have exchanged evidence prior to the round.

If you can’t provide a requested card within ~15 seconds:

I dock speaks

That piece of evidence is gone from my evaluation

Casewiki disclosure is cool but not required.

Public Forum (PF)

If you’ve read the section above, great. Now the PF-specific stuff:

1. No progressive arguments.

If you run disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, shells, tricks, spikes, or anything pulled from a camp “PF is secretly LD now” file… strike me.
If you run it anyway, you lose. Full stop.

PF was designed to be accessible. The commercialization and LD-ification of PF disproportionately harms schools with fewer resources. I won’t participate in that erosion of the event.

2. I’m a flow judge.

Bring arguments across the flow.
If it’s not in rebuttal, it cannot magically reappear in summary.
If you collapse to something you didn’t extend properly, I will not evaluate it.

I often attach a picture of my flow in my RFD so you can roast my handwriting and see exactly what I missed—that feedback loop is valuable.

Lincoln–Douglas (LD) 1. Contention spam = bad.

If you read five or six contentions at blistering speed, be prepared for me to:

Attempt a quick case read if time allows, or

Not punish your opponent for “drops” that aren’t realistically flowable

Quality > quantity.

2. Counterplans are fine.

I’m comfortable evaluating CPs.

3. Kritiks

I don’t coach Ks, but I try to stay familiar with major lit bases.
You can win with a K in front of me, but you need to be:

Clear

Connected to the resolution

Actually explaining the literature

If you plan to run straight theory… strike me.

I prefer traditional LD.

World Schools Debate (WSD)

Love this format. But please know the rules. Read the NSDA/FFL guidelines and tournament-specific instructions.

What wins my ballot in WSD:

1. Clear contextualization of the motion
Define terms. Clarify the “actor” if the motion doesn’t specify it.

2. A believable, well-explained framework
Place it early. Don’t wait until rebuttal or—worse—the reply speech.
Framework clash should be resolved by the end of the second substantive speeches, not at the buzzer.

3. Specific examples, not vague claims
I don’t buy generic, hyperbolic, or lazy “global catastrophe” scenarios.
Use concrete illustrations and solid analysis.

4. Speaking Style
WSD is closer to OO/Congress than PF/LD.
Great delivery = great speaks.
Use rhetorical devices, vary your tone, engage the room.
If your head is buried in your script the entire round, your speaks will reflect that.

5. Strategy & PoIs

Use PoIs throughout protected time.

Spread them among your team.

Leverage PoIs to develop clash and redirect arguments strategically.

Judging Across All Events

I weigh heavily:



Summary & Final Focus (PF)

Rebuttal (LD)

Strategic choices

Clarity in weighing

Weigh your impacts properly.
“Magnitude, scope, and probability” is not an incantation—explain why your impact calculus matters in this specific round.

Pet Peeve

Nuclear war / extinction as a default impact.
I’ll evaluate it, but… c’mon. We can be more creative.

Disclosure & Feedback

I follow tournament policy.
I will disclose if instructed.
Ballots always contain feedback.

Bonus Points (Yes, Really)

Reference any of these and enjoy a small bump in speaks:

Rick and Morty (Season 7 or Mr. Nimbus required)

Campy horror movies

Apple TV's Shrinking— explain why it’s phenomenal or your Season 3 theories

Make me laugh. Keep me engaged. I’m giving you my weekend—entertain me and let’s all have a good time.