Byrne,+Patrick

Patrick Byrne The Meadows School LD Paradigm

Background: I debated infrequently in high school, where I primarily focused on policy. After having a debate-free undergraduate experience (graduated spring 07), I started judging LD earlier this year. While my actual debate experience is quite minimal, this year I have probably judged around 65-70 rounds, so I know what I’m doing.

I am pretty much open to anything, but here are my preferences and views:

K: I have no problem with K in general, but I am not familiar with most of the literature, so the time I spend learning it can take away from the time I can spend analyzing its role in the round. That being said, it might be more difficult to win if you choose that path. If you choose to run it, just make sure your analysis is clear. If you just spread through the whole thing at full speed I might be confused at the end of the AC, and this is not good.

Theory: I will vote on theory if it is legit. I am not a fan of arguments the other side cannot avoid, i.e. the resolution is bad, so I will probably accept weak responses. This is not to say you cannot win a round with this approach, but do not count on it. If you have a legit theory argument, make sure to tell me the violation, why it is a voter, when I should evaluate it, etc.

Speed: Speed is usually not a problem, as long as it is clear. If I cannot understand you, I am usually pretty good at immediately letting you know. If you choose to ignore my warnings it will be to your demise, as my tolerance for sub-par clarity is quite low. Do not use speed to simply increase the quantity of arguments. I am not going to vote for you because your opponent dropped a weak argument that was just spewed out. If you are able to get out a large number of solid arguments that have legit warrants, then by all means go for it.

Speaker Points: I would not consider myself generous with speaks. I usually score on a 25-30 scale (but will go lower if deserved), with 27 probably being average. These scores reflect mostly strategy, but will also reflect clarity if I felt it was really an issue in the round. If you want anything above a 27.5, I have to be somewhat impressed at the end of the round. For a 29+, I have to see very few, if any, flaws coming from your side. I have only given out a 30 once, and I now feel that was not deserved, so do not expect that unless you actually make me say “wow” to myself at the end of the debate.

Issues to Consider: My flows can get a little sloppy, so sign-posting is crucial. It’s not that I miss arguments, but I may organize them much differently than either debater. This being said, do not refer only to an argument’s place within the case, i.e. “contention 2, sub-point A-2.” I also occasionally butcher authors’ names, or miss them completely. Basically, if you refer to an argument itself, it will not take me long to find it on the flow. On a completely different side note, after reading Dan Meyers’ paradigm, I realized that I completely agree with him regarding the preference for the two debaters to agree on a standard. By NO means is this necessary, but I think it makes for good debate. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round.