Paradigm

Justimar Perez
Ransom Everglades

I mostly did PF in HS.

email: jperez@ransomeverglades.org

alright so with a few years of experience at the teacher level, my paradigm is based around whatever maximizes education for the teams in the round. basically, if you're unsure that your strategy is too techy based on my paradigm then it probably is.

read bolded for a quick rundown if you're unwilling to go through the whole paradigm.

1. Truth>Tech. That being said, I won't use my personal understanding of any argument to bail you out if/when you're confronting bad substance/bad faith arguments. If the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any intervention/help from me.

2. On Speed/Spreading - Honestly, at this point, I find spreading to be counterproductive to education. (I will yell 'clear' or 'louder' if I struggle but if I need to keep doing that I'm going to nuke your speaks). Speed is not purposeful if all you're doing is introducing 6 different blippy arguments in hopes that one makes it across and wins you the round (just read better evidence to strengthen your links instead of the blips). You do NOT need to spread versus a novice team, just out-debate them.

3. On Ks - Oftentimes in PF this feels like a gimmick but I believe they're valid arguments so I will evaluate them. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my understandings of terms of art/common terms from your authors, whose viewpoints I am likely unfamiliar with.Extend the link into the resolution.

4. On Weighing - Rhetoric impacts are bad arguments. Explain/Weigh why your impacts are impactful. Don't just tell me 'poverty bad', explain why poverty is bad and what poverty actually causes. You can't outweigh on "Scope". There is no implication to what "Scope" means unless you give it context. Impact calculus takes into account Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe. Implicate what your advocacy has in terms of contextualized warranting versus just yelling out "scope" and praying it works out.

5. On Evidence Sharing - Start a file-share before round start (an e-mail chain/Speechdrop).Please don't be the reason the tournament is running 30min-1hr longer than needed. No judge wants to watch you stand awkwardly over someone's shoulder while waiting for a card,just send it electronically and that way judges can have it too if it becomes a point of contention. If a card you called out for is miscut/misleading and this is enough to win you the round TELL ME TO READ THE CARD BEFORE I MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE IT TURNS THE ROUND. Don't get mad at me after the round because you didn't explicitly tell me to read a card, debate is about communication, I'm not personally going to indict the evidence for you.

6. On New Arguments - I try my hardest to give debaters as much agency as possible to actually debate. That being said, DO NOT introduce new arguments in the last speech of the debate, I will - at best - ignore them or - at worst - vote you down if the team after you argues that the introduction is a voting issue (fairness/time, etc.) This happens enough that it needs its own section.

7. On Framework - I will default to a utilitarian framework to weigh unless given an alternative by either team. In terms of defaulting to utilitarianism, unless a team in the round offers an alternative framework then this is generally what people would end up arguing under anyway (I literally don't trust teams to weigh appropriately so I'll just save us all the time and say this in my paradigm to at the very least mentally prepare you to weigh in some capacity). You can lose the framework debate and still win the round. Winning framework does not inherently mean you win the round. It is entirely possible to lose (or concede) the framework debate and still win. Framework is about who operates better under that given paradigm.

8. On Crossfire - Cross is underrated, most rounds are actually decided here (in my opinion).

9. On Extensions - Summary and Final Focus should be aligned - whatever you extend in Final Focus should also have been present in Summary. I don't believe defense is sticky. You should still extend defense on an argument unless the other sides explicitly kicks out.

10. On Tricks - Don't. Deliberate attempts to subvert clash by lying, misleading, hiding arguments, being unethical will be poorly received. What're you trying to prove by doing this? That you can't win a round by actually debating?

11. Don't be rude - Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will make me drop you.There are more important things in life than winning while also being mean to other human beings. We're all trying to partake in something that we enjoy/makes us happy. Don't be the reason someone has a terrible day.

12.Post-rounding - Post-rounding is supposed to be educational. Be polite/curious - I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.