Bishop,+Luke


 * Bio: ** Four years high school debate experience at Savannah R-III high school in Savannah, Mo, almost entirely in CX. Two time national qualifier, one time to the ToC. Main events in high school were CX and IX. And to a lesser extend PF and OO. I’ll understand if you strike me because of the whole “Missouri” thing. I’d probably do it too. I currently attend UMKC.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(For Dowling Kids… I’ve come to learn I’m listed as a judge for LD. Go to bottom of page for my LD Paradigm. But that doesn’t mean skip this section. A lot of my RFDs will still be based off of things that are relevant to all debate, like speed, the “how to win” section, and attitude areas. So yea... check those out too.)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions, feel free to email me, luke.s.bishop1993@gmail.com ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here’s a really quick version of my paradigm if you don’t want to take the time to read everything, I know I probably wouldn’t. **Ks:** Okay with me, so long as they make logical sense. **CPs:** Be ready to defend the CP just like you would an AFF. **T:** I probably won’t vote on T unless the AFF is REALLY non-topical **Theory:** Theory is awesome. I have voted entirely on Theory in the past. **Speed:** Don’t go above your own limits. Doesn’t bother me so long as I can understand it. **Framework:** I default towards a very open ended Framework, odds are I won’t vote on it. **DAs:** I like them. Be sure that they actually make sense, and convince me of the story of the Disad from the s/q, to the plan, to the impact. This INCLUDES brinks and internal links if you need them.


 * HOW TO WIN: ** Convince me, the judge, that I should either vote for the AFF’s plan, or against it because of some other action, philosophical critique, or policy based implications (CPs, Ks, and DAs). At the end of the round, the team that presents me with the clearest and most convincing vision of the future will likely get my ballot. I will place philosophical disputes or in-round issues (T, Theory, Framework, Pre-fiat Ks) before that analysis IFF you actually convince me to. Don’t just assume I will, cause I probably won’t. BE PERSUASIVE. I view debate as a game type realm for the advancement of education and knowledge. Convince me you’re right, and you’ll get the ballot. Plain and simple.


 * Attitude: ** I put this up top because I consider it every important. If I don’t like you, winning my ballot is going to be a lot harder. Don’t be rude. Don’t be arrogant. Odds are, it won’t affect the win or the loss, but it will DEFINITELY affect your speaks.

> >
 * Some things you need to know… **
 * You need to convince me of your evidence. This means Impact Analysis, Comparisons between arguments, and good logical explanations. There’s nothing I hate more than when someone’s explanation of a card’s legitimacy or correctness is because, “Well the author is ____, so I’ll take his word for it.”
 * Don’t cheat. There’s not simpler way I can put that… If I find you’ve lied about evidence, have had communication about the round with someone outside, etc., then that will likely be enough of a reason for me to give you a loss. Seriously… don’t do it.
 * I know what’s happening in the world. Don’t try to slip BS past me. And I WILL evaluate certain wild claims against what I know to be true. If it’s clearly not accurate, if you make the claim that Canada will rise up, invade the US, take our nuclear weapons, and start WWIII, even if the other team doesn’t answer it, I won’t vote for it. I’ll likely only intervene in extreme circumstances. But seriously, just stick to the truth, and don’t risk it.
 * Case Debates: ** There needs to be more of these. I love them. They rock. Do this.


 * Cross Ex: ** This is a message to all debaters… The purpose is to convince me of a point, not your opponent. Once you’ve made your point in CX, even if your opponent doesn’t agree with you, you can move on. If I get it, that’s good enough. There’s nothing I find more annoying than two kids going back and forth arguing about something just because the speaker won’t say “yes” to a question he’s trying to avoid.

**Speed:** Be clear. It doesn’t bother me if you read fast. However, I will always prefer quality to quantity. So don’t expect to win an argument, say the Link Debate simply because you had MORE cards that said, “Plan is Expensive.” Slow down on Kritik based arguments, simply because I don’t have as much experience with them as other judges might, and it’s more difficult for me to follow effectively. Also, if your opponent can’t understand you, be considerate in CX when they start asking you to repeat everything. We were all there once, again, don’t be rude.


 * Kritiks: ** Will I vote for them? Yes. Will I be happy about it? Probably not. I’m perfectly able to flow and follow the arguments, but I lean much more towards real policy maker or substantive arguments. Basically, I’m not going to vote on bull shit, so don’t feed it to me. If you have a real philosophical reason to reject the Aff, fine. But odds are, I won’t vote the team down because their plan text said “tactical” in it.

**Framework Debates:** Be clear, and give me REAL reason beyond “Kritiks are cheating” as to why I should or shouldn’t allow certain actions within the round. Be clear, be precise, and be specific to the issue at hand. I’m unlikely to vote on it unless you do a REALLY good job convincing me on the issue. Odds are, I’ll allow whatever crazy form of actions the Neg/Aff takes, so long as it doesn’t blatantly violate a rule of the tournament, NFL, ToC, etc. If you don’t do a GREAT job of convincing me, or the debate is stale or evenly balanced, I’ll default to a very open Framework.

**Theory:** Awesome. I love a good theory debate. Be sure to ACTUALLY answer our opponents claims. I have before, and I will continue to be willing to vote entirely on Theory. I consider the theory of debate to be extremely important in the round, and will definitely and seriously consider any theory args you bring up.

**Topicality: PLEASE** only run if the plan is completely non-topical. I’ll likely default to reasonability or predictability unless you do a really good job convincing me, on the standards and voters debate, that the violation is something that should be a stand-alone issue that I look at before anything else. Odds are, if you run a stupid T, you’ll do more to anger me as a judge than you will to possibly win the round.

**Counterplans:** Neg, be prepaired to defend the CP. Once you bring it up, unless you win the Condo Good debate (if that’s the path you choose to take) I AM going to hold you to it. These means you have a burden of proof and to defend it just like an Aff would defend their plans. The moment you read a CP, I default to holding you up to the same standards and qualifications of an aff when it comes to proving me you are right. If you don’t do a good job convincing me of the CP, I’ll likely default to the AFF’s plan as being superior, because, let’s face it, it probably is. I’m open to any theory on the CPs, condo, dispo, uncondo, or anything else you might come up with in the round, set your own standards for when you can drop it for all I care. Just be ready to prove them to me and defend them.

**Disads:** I like ‘em. That’s about all there is to it. These are my favorite types of arguments, and the ones I’m most likely to vote on. They’re the real, policy maker style arguments that I favor. That being said, I also get really frustrated with dumb Disads. I WILL vote on things like, “They never prove the plan pushes us past the brink” type arguments. Make sure you construct a good story for me. Keep your internal links and brinks (if you need on for the DA) strong.


 * New in the 2: ** I just decided to put this here because some people still ask me… No. I’m not okay with it. Totally not cool…

**New in the Rebuttals:** Also not cool bro. Won’t flow it. On that note, you should also know that I’ll defend the 2nr/2ar from unfair “extensions”. If you don’t say it in the 1ar, I don’t care how well you said it in the 2ac, that’s not a legitimate reason to say the 2nr didn’t respond to it. Seriously. My flow gets “updated” if you will with each speech. I’ll only consider the arguments that have been continued through every speech.

I didn’t do LD in high school besides a few times when my partner couldn’t make it to a tournament. I’m likely to judge based off of the V/C and Value debate. I’m a fast learner though. If you’ve got some other thing you want to tell me about, go for it. If you convince me for it, I’ll vote for it, probably. Basically… my LD experience has been limited ENTIRELY to two areas. 1. The state of Missouri, specifically the KC area. And 2. Watching national final rounds. So that’s what I know. Use this knowledge wisely, for whatever that means.
 * __ LD Paradigm: __**