Diehl,+Patrick

Patrick Diehl Scarsdale High School

UPDATES: I'm sure no one reads this anymore, that seems to be what happens after you've judged a few rounds on the circuit. In case you do check this before TOC though, I have two major updates to my paradigm: 1) I have decided to "give the 2AR a break." Basically what this means is that I will be more lenient to what might be otherwise considered new in the two. I think new weighing, comparison of arguments, and even perhaps a degree of new argumentation can all be warranted strategies in the 2AR, given the appropriate situation. Simply put, the neg wins too much, and I'd like to start judging in a way where I vote aff as much as I do neg. Maybe I'll even get lucky and have to judge fewer rounds because of this. 2) Show some personality. The debaters I enjoy judging most, let their personalities show in-round. You are not argument automatons. I will reward humor, confidence, and generally good fun, with better speaks.

Speed: I can handle speed, but that does not mean that I prefer it. Given the choice between two identical speeches, in terms of content, I prefer the slower of the two. Clarity is a big deal to me; I will shout "clear" one or two times before your speaks begin rapidly decreasing. If I can't flow your argument, expect it to be absent from my evaluation of the round.

Paradigm Question: My personal preference is for an offense-defense framework that evaluates the comparative desirability of the affirmative or negative advocacy. This does not mean I cannot be persuaded to adopt an alternative paradigm, I am just letting you know to where I default, absent argumentation on this topic. This means a prioris need to be accompanied by a reason for why truth testing is a good evaluative framework.

Policy Args: Kritiks: I am not well versed in most critical literature. This means two things for you: 1) You need to explain your arguments very well in order for me to vote on them, and 2) I am more easily persuaded by what may be called "intuitive" or "basic" responses to kritiks, such as, “utopian alternatives are silly.” I am also highly unlikely to vote on skeptical arguments. Counterplans and Disads: I really like counterplan and disad debates. I encourage them and think that they are very strategic. This is probably a good strategy if I am in the back of the room.

Theory: I probably understand theory better than most critics you will have at any given tournament. I think that theory should be used when necessary, and you should be conscious of not over using it. This doesn't mean that I throw bad theory of out the round, but does mean I will be more easily persuaded that it does not apply or should not be voted on.

General: Please impact and weigh arguments. Debates should not occur on five different areas of the flow (i.e. two separate pieces of AC offense, two different pieces of NC offense, and an overview that functions as a case turn). It should be obvious that these arguments are related to one another and need to be compared. This means that you should compare arguments' functions and impacts, so that I can make the correct decision. In accordance with this, I expect a clear explanation of the order in which I should evaluate arguments. I don't really care about in-round formality. This means you can sit instead of stand, use flex instead of traditional cross-x, etc. This does not mean I think it's okay to be mean or excessively rude to your opponent.

Speaks: I start at a 27.5 and move up and down from there. 30s are for exceptional debates, and lower than a 25 means that I think you are terrible.