Paradigm

Bernie Medeiros
Lake Highland Prep

Updated 2/17/25

I did policy debate for 4 years in high school to moderate success, and debated at Georgetown for a couple years. These days I’m doing my PhD at the University of Florida.

Add me to the email chain - medeirosb2002@gmail.com

Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine.

LD-specific thoughts:

--> Phil - Not really my thing, so my threshold for argument explanation will likely be higher than most judges... that being said, not opposed to these kinds of arguments & have voted on them before.

--> Tricks- I don't really like them, but I'll evaluate them. If you're reading tricks for the purpose of skirting clash, though, your speaks will probably not be phenomenal.

--> Friv Theory - Will evaluate these arguments, and am willing to vote for them, but my threshold for arguments and warrants is probably higher than most judges.

Things that are non-negotiable:

- Blatant racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto loss, and I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Some things to keep in mind:

- I typically ascribe to the belief that speech times and the structure of the debate are not flexible, but I guess I'm open to being persuaded otherwise here.

- I do not typically feel comfortable making decisions based on issues that occurred outside of the debate round (with exceptions for things like disclosure theory).

- Presumption flips negative by default.

- Beyond the above, my only strong disposition is the negative team gets to do pretty much whatever. I can probably be convinced otherwise. That said, I've included a list of miscellaneous dispositions loosely organized by argument.

Risk Calculus:

- Tech > Truth.

- Frame the debate however you want, but do it well and explain why it matters.

- Author qualifications matter. Debate is a research activity, and debaters should do good research.

- Spark is a terrible argument. This isn't really "risk calculus," but I felt the need to say this and wasn't sure where else I could.

Theory:

- Conditionality is good (usually).

- All theory arguments other than conditionality are (usually) a reason to reject the argument. (I have found myself adhering to this belief less and less as I've judged more LD debates.)

Topicality v Plans:

- Limits are awesome, but only if they are precise.

- I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability is not an argument if it is not coupled with a reasonable counter-interpretation.

Disadvantages:

- Topic disadvantages are great.

- I like politics disads! They are often admittedly pretty silly and contrived though, so I am amenable to aff arguments pointing out the absence of obvious internal links.

- The disadvantage should probably turn the case.

Counterplans:

- Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

- Process counterplans and consult counterplans probably do not compete.

- Word PICs probably do not compete.

- I will judge kick the counterplan unless I am told not to.

Kritiks/Planless Affs:

- Fairness is an impact.

- I am fine with any and all genres of kritikal literature. That said, I don't have an extensive background with every field of critical literature that debaters like to talk about, so I may not understand what you're saying unless you go out of your way to explain it.

- In K v K debates, make the interactions between different theories of power very clear. I will happily adjudicate these debates, but am likely to end up a little confused.