Paradigm

Garrett Bishop
Cypress Bay High School

2/14 UPDATE — i will not evaluate "tab solves." it does not.


Graduated from Cypress Bay in 2020.

I would like to be on the chain: garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

few people have told me this doesn't work

I also own and operate Shakes Debate. Ask about it :)

The more I judge, I really do not care what you read. If you can read it, I can probably evaluate it.

I would prefer not to listen to theory heavy strategies, and you would prefer that I don’t either. 1] I probably don’t flow well enough to keep up with 7 minutes of 1NC theory analytics at top speed. 2] I probably don’t think about theory like you do. The folks that taught me theory debate did CX in the 90s. I have not been able to break that model of thinking about theory.

I believe that my "misc thoughts" are slowly becoming a complete, if unorganized, paradigm.

If you have questions, please feel free to email me.

I start speaks at 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Out of 406 Lincoln Douglas rounds, I average 28.83 as of the beginning of the 2025 New York City Invitational.

Two debaters share my highest average speaks at 29.9.

Misc thoughts after a few conversations I've had recently:

I think the fairness paradox is dumb lowk. If it does justify anything, it justifies structural fairness. It definitely does not justify procedural fairness.

I could be persuaded by fun as a voter on theory, I think.

I am vaguely disappointed that the K debate meta places primacy on framework. I find myself enjoying Policy v 1-off K strats that have a lot of interaction with the post-fiat plan rather than uplayering with framework. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate framework, like a certain judge, in a certain bid round, that I'll refrain from naming here, but it does mean that I will be very pleased by K teams that actually answer the affirmative in a substantial way.

I think that 1 off T fwk is my favorite strategy against K affs (im not a cop) — K teams are often very bad at justifying and defending their method.

I do not think that most violations are written in a way that is conducive to the interpretation “The Negative ought not rejoin nontopical affirmatives.” Writing violations has become a lost art.

I will vote for disclosure. I do not want to vote for disclosure. (This is not true if I’m judging PF. Disclose or lose.)

This has maybe not been emphasized enough. I very much do not want to listen to disclosure, especially if there isn’t a tangible inability to engage. In prelims, if I have an idea of an idea that you’re reading disclosure to suck up time, I’m capping speaks at 29. Reading a disclosure shell in the 1AC is maybe the fastest way to bleed speaks. I would really rather not listen to this.

Rewarding speaks for “bounties” is a bad model, I think. That said, I’m going to start lowering speaks if I’m waiting around beyond round start time for a 1AC to be sent.

the 2000 word cap for paradigms makes me sad but I understand