Paradigm

Roberto Sosa
Florida Forensic League Hired Judges

Hello, my name is Roberto Sosa (he/him)

Am currently a senior at Cardinal Gibbons have done LD since freshman year, 4 career bids, and i won a couple tourneys

add me to the email chain -> 223255@cghsfl.org

Misgendering your opponent multiple times will lead u to a fat L and nuked speaks- even if its an accident if you've been corrected once its on you.

Tech>truth but all args need a claim, warrant, impact

Note for Novice States

I prefer debates with lots of clash, so engage your opponents arguments, be nice, and have fun.

the rest

I dont really believe quick prefs actually encapsulate ability to evaluate rounds since context is necessary but if ur really in a pinch here you go- these are according to my ability to evaluate these args over all

K- 1

Phil- 2-3

Theory/T- 3

Tricks- strike

Policy- 1-2

please have an enter space between your analytic arguments. its hard to read and flow

how to format:

argument
a. subpoint

b. subpoint

2. argument

a. subpoint

b. subpoint

how not to format part 1

argument a. subpoint b. subpoint
2. argument a. subpoint b. subpoint
how not to format part 2

argument
a. subpoint
b. subpoint
2. argument
a. subpoint
b. subpoint
theres more examples but these are the most common. just follow the instruction pls or i wont flow the arguments


I'll vote on almost anything, with a few exceptions.

1. no arguments hidden in cards, blocks of analytics, etc. This doesn't mean your arguments cant have like a hidden implication or something though, they just cant be hidden in terms of their location on the doc

2. im evaluating every speech.

3. no racism, sexism, homophobia good etc. ik everyone says this but someone deadass read "the natives deserved it" vs me so

Now onto more specific

K stuff-

General K stuff

This is probs my favorite style of debate

If you care, literature bases ive read/gone for/ am familiar w are Marx, psychoanalysis, baudrillard, hardt and negri, nietzsche, cybernetics, necropolitics, edelman/baedan, and grove. However i think you should do the same amount of explanation for whatever k you're going for regardless, and you shouldn't be discouraged if whatever ur reading isn't mentioned

Kaffs
For k affs, i think you should be able to explain some sort of relationship to the topic. Whether it being that the topic is bad, it asks the wrong question, or etc you need some sort of countermodel to debate that preserves some neg ground.

vs framework, impact turns r def strategic, but you should also include a counterinterpretation. Please dont spam multiple counterinterpretations

I also prefer to understand wtf ur aff means b4 the end of the 1ac. Tags that are absurdly long and make less sense then the ev itself bother me since it contradicts the purpose of taglines. I've also noticed people using buzzwords that aren't even relevant to the stuff they're reading just to be more edgy/complicated. Pls do not do that

"my theory of power explains yours" args often become messy bc lack of comparative analysis or warranting, but if done well can be persuasive

presumption can also be very persuasive, a lot of k-affs do not do much if anything

the less you defend and the more you de-link neg args, the more convincing framework becomes

Ks on the neg

Long, prewritten overviews suck and make me sad. Yours should not be longer then 30 seconds, and should only contain a brief explanation of your thesis as well as the framing issue of what this particular debate is, not some recycled analytic.


Lots of reps ks are dumb but it depends on the context. reps ks about discourse annoy me, particularly ones about things like saying the word "stupid"

When it comes to framework, the less leeway you give the aff with case, the more likely i am to agree w "the rob is to determine the plan's desirability". im of the opinion plans should get to weigh some of case, but specific framework ev can go a long way and perhaps convince me otherwise

Please read specific links. If i see the fiat link or state link or something i will probably have an aneurism. ill vote on it but i prefer more innovative arguments

In the 2nr, give me a specific explanation. Dont read your link extensions straight down, i need like specific lines from the 1ac and an exact idea of what your k thinks is bad. have an impact to your link. Giving IRL examples of how the link can play out are beautiful and show in depth knowledge as well as gives a good visualizing of what the link is- the more abstract your explanation, the more likely it is i just vote on case outweighing

Explaining why your links turn/non uq the aff is incredibly strategic. i love k tricks, please use them

Imo, links are disads and perm is severance if you win a link are like true responses to perms unless they have lots of fleshed out offense on the alt or link- disads to the perm r less important to me but having one can be useful

Please weigh your K impact clearly and show why it comes first

On the alternative, i need to know what it does. Giving IRL examples of what the alt looks like r a perfect way to do this. Explain why the alt solves case, and how risk of solvency OW given things like link turning case and etc.
Some things r too new for me. Ex, i think floating piks are bull. K tricks like turns case, alt solves, etc r fine though

Policy

softleft affs are silly (with minor exceptions). Extinction impacts r probs more strategic.

I love well researched cps (No the recycled consult nato cp doesnt count). If ur aff loses to these, write better affs. the exception is stuff like word piks and etc. I probs err neg on most cp theory as well as condo although i can def be convinced by the aff that the cp is abusivee

1-2 well developed impact scenarios>>>>>> shotgunning a million impact scenarios

extinction ow + link defense goes a long way vs the k if done well

people should read and go for impact turns vs Ks a lot more frequently than they do now

T-framework

ive found that a lot of arguments kaffs make vs Tfw are incredibly false- exploit that

here is a tier list for T arguments

S- Clash builds argument refinement creating advocacy skills and self reflection that prevents dogmatism

A- Fairness first because debate is a game, we all compete for different reasons making the only unifying factor the ballot and we should both have equal access to the ballot

C- fairness because we cant answer the aff, truth testing args, small schools, etc

I'll evaluate all those args but the ones i put in c tier are less convincing

If they are sketchy in cx and use the 1ar to delink from ur offense framework becomes muchhhh more convincing. the closer to the topic the harder itll be to convince me the aff is unfair

i think tvas are defense but ssd can be framed offensively, mostly because a lot of kaffs are fine with kaffs vs cap/heg good and i dont think theres a big distinction between that and just reading the k on the negative.

the aff can definitely weigh the aff against T ? ig u can win this arg but its an uphill battle....

the case page should make the 2nr

Theory

i'll vote on any shell except for ones that indict someones appearance or things they cant change. Use intuition. No out of round violations except for things like disclosure

I kind of like good clever theory arguments but those seem to be rare- and no, recycling a meme shell doesn't make it funny

Not putting defaults since i dont believe in them. Read paradigm issues for gods sake.

Strat skew is not real standard. All fairness claims technically are about your "strat being skewed". be more specific

I really dislike blippy theory debates- i prefer fleshed out warrants. Paragraph theory really annoys me, so if you're reading it there should be time dedicated. I dont wanna hear "condos a voter bc it skewed my strat" as the entire argument, and i might even miss it, so its in your best interest to either just read a shell or flesh it out

Reasonability is so underused. Going for it w a specific brightline is 100% necessary. I wont use reasonbility without a brightline.

Saying "use reasonability uniquely for spec" and args of the like that have specific warranting for why spec shells necessitate reasonability are beautiful

if you're reading 1ar theory, you need to do weighing. im not accepting new 2ar weighing unless you make args in the 1ar for why you get to

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT ANALYTICS-

I have a hard time flowing analytics. If you're spamming interps or args, you need a seperate number and label for each one. not crammed together. see above

T

same as theory but imo can be more fun- good ev and tva goes a long way. Nebel is dumb

notes on framework will be in the policy section

Phil

This can be really cool or it can make me really angry.

I think good phil debate is p much dead. Opening a doc to see analytic throw up physically pains me and distances phil from actual syllogisms w warrants. Pls have cards in your framework, I am not here to listen to a high schooler's cliff notes on complex moral philosophy

You definitely need an impact calc section explaining how impact calculus works- seems a lil weird not to esp if its one of the more less common phil args

frameworks such as levinas, existentialism, butler and the like are so much more entertaining then seeing the same kant framework being recycled- not to say i wont vote on it, i def will if done well- its just i think the less common args r more fun

I'm devoting a special section to something that particularly bothers me- phil authors are so awfully bastardized it physically pains me. If i see one more hobbes NC that says "negate bc its the will of the state since they haven't done the aff" i will blow my brains out. Please stay true to the theory

Phil v K interactions can be really cool so if done well i'll be super happy- humanism good is sooo underutilized bc people just read farr and think that thinking racism is bad is a good K answer. Including heg good in the 1ar wouldnt hurt either!!

Tricks

pain. ill vote on them, but you gotta delineate, space and label them or else i'll happily not vote on them (or just genuinely miss them on the flow)

I much prefer a really clever apriori or logic trick as opposed to the resolved apriori or other recycled rgs. I also think even if its conceded, you need to extend the warrant or i will refuse to vote on it. You cant just say "ahah concession vote aff!", but rather should restate the original claim, the reason why its true, and why that means i vote for u (aside from it being conceded)

if i dont understand and cant explain back to you the logical trick ur going for, i wont vote on it. this means ur warrants should be in the speech the trick is read , not attached later

if you arent straight up in cx im nuking your speaks

tricks vs kaffs are defffffffffffffffffff not the move especially those pertaining to oppression of certain groups of people

if you're reading something like condologic and your opponent asks if 'racism is good" would be a true statement, please just give up on the argument

Conclusion

The round is yours to determine the winner (ill be tab), but speaks are mine to express my thoughts.