For the debate nerds so they'll stop yelling at me. Speech events paradigm coming soon.

Lincoln Douglas

Speed: Conversational Pace; Fast pace is fine if you are understandable; spreading should be forbidden. No one can understand what you’re saying normally therefore no one knows what your arguments are, so there’s no way you can prove your side or engage with your opponent on a meaningful level. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Case Structure: logos should be the rope that holds your case together, ethos should only support the contentions you propose, pathos is only necessary for an intro, conclusion, and impacts

Refutation: You should rely on mainly logos to refute your opponent, but if you use a “block” you need to tell me why the evidence is better than the evidence your opponent provided

Closing Speech: Whether you use voter issues or world comparison doesn’t matter. I’m familiar with both strategies in closing and have personally used both. The main thing that matters is that you clearly tell me why you win according to the voting issues, or by how your world is the ideal.

PSA: Make sure to address the value in the round. This format is not policy though some would like it to be, which means we aren’t debating on practicality entirely, but rather on what we should value more as a society.

Public Forum

Speed: Conversational Pace; Fast pace is fine if you are understandable; spreading should be forbidden. No one can understand what you’re saying normally therefore no one knows what your arguments are, so there’s no way you can prove your side or engage with your opponent on a meaningful level. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Case Structure: logos should be the rope that holds your case together, ethos should only support the contentions you propose, pathos is only necessary for an intro, conclusion, and impacts

Refutation: You should rely on mainly logos to refute your opponent, but if you use a “block” you need to tell me why the evidence is better than the evidence your opponent provided

Closing Speech: Whether you use voter issues or world comparison doesn’t matter. I’m familiar with both strategies in closing and have personally used both. The main thing that matters is that you clearly tell me why you win according to the voting issues, or by how your world is the ideal.

PSA: The framework is what matters the most. If you don’t engage at that level, you’re going to be arguing past each other the entire round. The framework can either be a policy or a metaethical system so long as you can argue for why it should be the framework for the round and topic.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
• College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
• High school and middle school mock trial coach
• College moot court coach
• Founded my university's debate program
• Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
• Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Philosophy:

• Some describe me as a "hipster"; though I enjoy modern philosophy and theoretical arguments, my philosophy of debate centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• The perfect case for my taste would probably be an amazing Cap K that is linked reasonably to the resolution, argued in a traditional style.
• Tech over truth (within reason); you should probably run your tech case for me.
• I ♥ when impacts and late-round weighing actually connect to the framework.
• LARP starts and ends with an L :)

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can understand it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, you better be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I haven't judged many K's because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm pretty familiar with the critical theories behind most K's.

• Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly.
• I will not vote for disclo. I can't even begin to describe how terrible and boring the argument is. Similarly, reading tricks is basically your way of telling me you're scared you can't win the round legitimately. Why would I ever reward that?
• Just putting this here again to remind you: LARP starts and ends with an L :)

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 13 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.

Interp/speech

I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging debate more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

Speak at a moderate pace that both your opponent and I can follow. This is Public Forum, there should be no theory - that belongs to Policy and LD.

I will be flowing the round. No new arguments in summary. However, in summaries, I do prefer a line-by-line to address the round. Give me clear voters in your final focus to make sure that I know what you want me to vote on for the round.

Avoid off-time roadmaps - your speech should clearly signpost.

For evidence shares: please use this email - taylor.sluder@bcsemail.org