Tabroom.com

Plano West Camp Tournament 2019

2019 — Plano, TX/US

Open Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nihar Annam HS LJA

Last changed on Sun October 25, 2020 at 8:17 AM EDT

did PF '18-'20 at Plano West ('16-'18 at Jasper but we won't talk about that)

general stuff:

uncarded warrants > unwarranted cards.

im super super warrant heavy - just reading 20 card tags and calling it rebuttal isn't a strategy. Going for truth is not as incompatible with the tech as you'd like to think.

The first time you warrant an argument, I will take that as your warrant. This doesn't mean that I will vote for an argument with poor warrant extension, but if the first time you provide/explain the warrant is not in the first speech you read the argument, I will not consider the argument.

if you read anything racist/ableist/sexist/etc. its an L20

im fine with speed - if you're unclear i'll ask you to slow down; if you're clear but I can't flow i'll just call for a speech doc. The faster you go, the more important it is to signpost. Please don't spread out novices.

evidence ethics are super important - please use cut cards in case. I'd rather you read an uncarded warrant than misconstrue evidence to fit your warrant. theres a good chance I drop you if an important card is misconstrued.

that being said, I don't super care about evidence. I will care if you misconstrue, but if a team reads a actual logical response to a carded arg and its never responded to (or poorly responded to) I'll p much always buy the logical response.

I don't really care about cross - if something important happens, mention it in a speech. That said, I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk in cross.

I'm going to be really reluctant to vote on new weighing in ff, please start it earlier.

First summary does not need to extend defense that isn’t frontlined in the first rebuttal. Defense is sticky.

Extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. I'll give you marginal offense with a poorly extended impact, but no offense from a poorly extended warrant.

The second rebuttal has to respond to all of 1st rebuttal or it's considered dropped.

no das in rebuttal

I vote prob > mag unless given a reason not to

other stuff:

im fine with theory and well explained, limited jargon Ks. no tricks or topicality tho.

if you read progressive stuff on a clearly novice team, I'll either tank your speaks or just down you.

I would strongly prefer if carded framing (like GPP extinction framing or whatever) was in case - it makes for actual fw debate.

I believe very strongly in durable fiat. I'm not going to intervene on args, but my threshold for work needed to win a durable fiat arg is very low.

If you want to debate plans/cps for whatever reason, I'm fine with it on the conditions of: a) both sides agree before the round and b) the other side gets their plan/cp too.

I also agree with everything from these people's paradigms:

Chris Sheerer

Matt Feng

Daniel Liang

There might be stuff I missed: just ask me before round

Alec Antonakakis Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 13, 2021 at 1:26 AM CEST

*Fall 2021 Update: I haven't judged since Covid hit so I'm a little rusty. Go a lil slower than normal. I'm also not super familiar with this year's CX topic yet so make sure you slow down on tags and advocacies*

About Me:

Conflicts: Prosper HS, Lovejoy HS

Email: antonakakisas@gmail.com (I'd like to be on the email chain, but I probably won't look at the doc unless evidence and intricate warrants become an issue). I also have a more extensive record of my judging history under another email.

Pronouns: She/Her

Graduated from Prosper High School in 2019 (I did LD for four years, did PF once, and did extemp throughout the four years occasionally.) I debated on the national circuit, TFA, NSDA, and UIL. I was a student at the University of North Texas from fall 2019 to spring 2020 and now I'm attending the University of Texas at Austin since fall 2020.

I mostly went for ks, particularly regarding post-modernism, post-structuralism, anarchism, security/militarism, and reps, but I also really like good case debate and phil/framework.

A few important things:

-If you're familiar with Blake Andrews' paradigm that's probably quite a similar way in which I view debate (given that he was my coach).

-Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent.

I'm inclined to err on reasonability. If there isn't any real abuse going on in the round I probably won't vote on theory.

If I think you're being toxic, offensive, or anything related to this then your speaks will drop and you could lose the round for it as well. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

Make clear, WARRANTED extensions, if you dont i wont evaluate it.

I am NOT the judge for intense theory debates. This means if you go for it I'll do my best to give a good adjudication, but don't be surprised if it's not top notch.

I won't vote on arguments I deem offensive, which is like most judges, however, this extends to arguments that cap is good, heg good, Hobbes, and libertarianism (yeah, I dont respect property rights).

Also, I'm not the fastest judge when it comes to flowing, i.e. don't go full speed. If I had to quantify it maybe my speed is a 7.5/10. I'll say clear 3 times if you're too fast or unclear, after that I'll stop flowing your arguments until you decide to clear up. This will affect your speaks.

Preferences:

K: 1

Theory: 4

Topicality: 4

Policy: 2

Framework: 1

Tricks: 3

Performance: 1

Extra Things I Like:

-Impact Turns: I think these are underutilized in debate, but keep in mind I don't mean impact turning racism bad and that sorta thing.

-Creative Strategies

-Concise crystallization and voters

-Kind and wholesome humor that isn't snarky

-Tell me when to clearly flow on a new piece of paper for overviews or counter interps.

-Clear signposting.

Extra Things I Don't Like:

-Recycled strategies and frameworks

-Rudeness or hostility. Here, I reserve the right to drop you or tank speaks as I see fit. This also applies to very rude or overly-critical post-rounding.

-Not a fan of blippy arguments and spikes

-When debaters who are objectively more experienced and skilled slaughter their opponent. You can clearly win a round, but be easy and constructive.

-Frivolous/Time Suck Theory Strats (I won't down you for it. but I'm not gonna be thrilled and your speaks will reflect this.)

Michael Chen MS SCV

Anirudh Garg HS LD

General

I did LD for four years on the TFA circuit. I also did Extemp with equal vigor and had a brief jaunt in Congress.

I'm down with speed so long as all of you flash me cases and stay clear. If I have to yell clear more than once, I will start deducting speaks. I'm decently familiar with Critical Lit and philosophy, but I still want you to explain your arguments like I'm a five-year-old. I'm mostly tabula rasa, but I will not stand any arguments extended without warrants if you blip, your speaks dip (you'll probably lose the round too). I love performances, and I encourage you to run them, but I'm a harsh critic. Please don't read theory in front of me; this is for your sake because I'm not good with judging theory and probably won't vote off it. On T, I default to reasonability unless you can convince me otherwise. I give speaks from 26 to 29.9 based on the clarity of your arguments as well as your posturing and strategies. Rudeness will dock you speaks. Make me laugh, and I will give you an extra 0.5 point.

I'm cool with speed and theory. I'm substance over rhetoric. If you want my ballot, give me a comprehensive and persuasive framework.

Pretty much the same as LD.

Congress

I'm substance over speaking here. I don't care if you have the voice of an angel. If you make bad arguments with faulty reasoning, you aren't going to place. Also, please don't yell at me; I can generally hear you from across the room. Don't BS sources, I'm lenient if you fumble dates, but I will drop the hammer on you for incorrect information.

Extemp

Same as Congress with the minor caveat being, I appreciate comedy more here than anywhere else (except, of course, in Interp). It won't supersede substance, but it may be a decision-maker.

Big Questions

I want to see a clear articulation of your arguments that displays your familiarity with the topic. The topics are broad, and I encourage you to be creative with your arguments and introduce new and esoteric concepts while making them accessible. In addition to proper argumentation and refutation, I want to see a good explanation. I'm peeved by filler words and would appreciate you going slow if you can remove them from your speech.

Robey Holland Hire

Last changed on Sat February 9, 2019 at 3:55 AM CDT

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Edison Huang HS LJA

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM EDT

Updated for Septober 2020

small topic knowledge

I debated for Plano West HL. he/him

General:

If you're reading material that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger or content warning (preferably this is done anonymously thru a Google form or smth). If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, you will be dropped.

Tech > truth. If you are not paraphrasing and are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.2 This also applies if you've disclosed on NDCA or CircuitDebater. Good warranting, weighing, and extensions will make me want to vote for you. I care more about how you articulate your warrants than the specifics of your evidence. Exception is if you're misrepresenting. If you are conceding de-links or non-uniques to kick out of turns, they must be made in the speech after the original response was made. Please preflow before the round. Keep track of your own and each others' time, and please don't steal prep. ehuang02 [at] gmail.com for any other questions, or message me on Facebook. I'm sorry if I make a bad decision. I'll try not to. also available for coaching so hmu

Important stuff:

1. Any offense that you want me to evaluate needs to be in summary and final focus and extended properly. Make sure every part of the arg is extended. If you are missing links, warrants, or an impact, I will probably not vote on it. This goes for turns also. If you extend a turn without explicitly implicating what the impact is, I won't vote for it. You also ought to re-extend the link/impact that you are turning if your opponents aren't extending it also. Frontlines are not extensions.

2. With summary being 3 minutes, defense you're going for needs to be in every speech.

3. Second rebuttal must answer turns from first rebuttal. You might want to also frontline defense on an argument that you want to go for, but I won't require it. If you choose to read independent offense, my threshold for extensions on that argument will be higher.

4. The earlier you begin weighing, the more likely it is that I vote for you. Weighing must be comparative and warranted. Consistency in weighing mechanisms that your partner has already introduced is a good idea. I won't evaluate weighing in second FF unless it is the only weighing in the round. Meta weigh as necessary. If I am presented two competing weighing mechanisms without any meta weighing, I will probably intervene on the link level and vote for the team with better warranting.

5. Please don't spread. If you want to go a little fast, it's fine. If I'm unable to understand you, I'll probably set my pen down or clear you. If you are going to spread, please send a speech doc.

6. Organization in a speech is important. Please signpost. Slowing down on author names will also help me out.

7. If something important comes in crossfire, it has to be in a speech for me to evaluate it. Crossfire is binding.

8. Debate how you like, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. I personally prefer a line by line summary. If both teams agree and want me to judge a different way (e.g. a lay judge), I can go for it.

9. I'll try to intervene as little as possible. If defense is read against an argument, implicated, and conceded, I will flow it through even if it's not responsive. However, my threshold for frontlining unresponsive args will be low. If you tell me it isn't responsive, I won't evaluate it. I will intervene on unwarranted arguments. If an argument is introduced without a warrant, and the warrant isn't read until a later speech, I am fairly unlikely to evaluate it. If it's conceded, I'll try not to evaluate it unless it's the only offense in the round. I may also default if there is no clear offense. I will default team that lost the coin flip if you tell me to, but otherwise I'll default first speaking team.

10. If both teams are ok with it, I will disclose speaks/results at the end of the round. If you're in the bubble round (and you tell me), you'll get high speaks.

11. Make sure your evidence says what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it, I will. If your evidence is misrepresented and significant in the round, I may drop you.

Progressive stuff:

1. I'm a bit comfortable with theory. You might want to ask me before the round if I'll be receptive to a certain shell. Extend all parts of the shell the same way you would extend a traditional arg.

2. Please don't run theory on novices.

3. I default no RVI/competing interps.

4. I'm not as comfortable with Ks, CPs or other progressive args. If you want to run these, you can, but you might need to work a little harder explaining it to me.

I enjoyed debating in high school. Try to have fun with it, and if there's anything I can do to help you enjoy it more, let me know. If there are still any questions, please ask me before the round begins. You can feel free to ask me about my decision.

Samir Iyer MS KKI

Last changed on Fri November 12, 2021 at 3:14 PM CDT

Competed in pf all 4 years of high school for Jasper/Plano West

PF Paradigm

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

Anthony Jiang Hire

Rohan Kamalakantha MS KKI

Conrad Krueger HS LD

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 7:38 PM EDT

Hey! I'm your judge.

Debated for Plano West. I competed a good amount on the national circuit and did fairly well. Ended up qualifying to the TOC my senior year in PF. I also have a bit of LD experience. Currently a junior computer science major at Texas A&M University.

Key Points:

1] HERE IS HOW I EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE ROUND:

Which impact/layer is the most important in the round?

Who is winning offense under it?

If you are winning offense under the most important layer whether that is on ur case or not. You have just won the round.

2] I’m not a perfect judge but I like to think of myself as flow, tab, Tech > Truth.

3] Run anything you want (except death or oppression good, 30 speaker points theory, burden of rejoinder is bad, following speech times bad) as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. The more nuanced ur args are, the more warranting I'd like to hear.

4] pls weigh. I'm begging you.

5] If you extend something it must have a warrant.

6] Speed is fine but if you’re gonna go policy fast pls send a speech doc so I can get all ur args down. Err on the side of going as slow as you can while spreading AND ENUNCIATE bc there is a greater chance I will miss something the faster you talk. I'll yell "clear" 3x before I just stop flowing.

7] Judge grilling and post rounding for educational purposes are good. Just know that I will not change my ballot after the round is over and if your questions turn into hateful bashing towards me or your opponents, I will happily tank your speaks.

8] Every offensive argument should be underneath some sort of framing/weighing mechanism I can vote off of (this is primarily for LD). If you just read an apriori that says affirm means to agree and since you agree you win. That's not good enough but I will 110% vote on those arguments if they are supplemented by some sort of weighing or framing argument. To clarify: Why should definitional burdens be the top layer of the debate? If you can answer that question, run whatever you like. As long as you explicitly tell me why the apriori is actually an apriori and comes before everything else.

9] Have fun.

For PF: defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is responded to. But needs to extend turns. Second rebuttal should frontline.

For LD: Run whatever you want. However, if you run anything philosophically oriented, please warrant your arguments heavily. I should be able to tell the other team with confidence what I am voting for.

Defaults (you can change ANY of these): presumption and permissibility negate. No RVIs and eval with competing interps on Theory. The default framework is a cost-benefit analysis (For PF).

Aditya Kumar MS KKI

Last changed on Fri February 4, 2022 at 8:28 AM CDT

hello friends! I debated for 4 years at Plano West.

chain: adikumar0306@gmail.com

If you have any questions that weren't answered here, I'll be happy to clear them up before round.

1. the warranting of an argument must happen completely the first time you read the response and should ideally be implicated out fully (new warrants/implications from a new warrant will be disregarded, should have theory read against them, and will tank your speaks)

2. I'm a big fan of early weighing in PF. With that being said, if you're just gonna restate your impact and throw out a buzzword, you might as well not weigh at all (make your weighing comparative). I also don't evaluate new weighing in second final unless there is no weighing done in the round prior to that.

3. If you want to dump turns against your opponents, go for it (just make sure the responses are actually responsive because if either a. the response isn't originally responsive and gets turned into something responsive or b. the response gets extended as a blip until final focus, I will intervene to drop the response even if your opponents dropped it completely). I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to reading lots of responses against an argument, but a response must consist of a claim, a warrant, and an implication to how it affects the original argument. offensive overviews in rebuttal are kinda abusive imo, so while ill evaluate it like any other DA/Advantage in the round, I have a lower threshold for responses against the argument and encourage people to read theory against it.

4. With the new three minute summaries, the extension of an argument consists of a re-explanation of the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact (failure to extend any one of these in summary or final focus drops the argument from my flow). For specific card extensions, idrc if you extend the card name, but it would be preferred.

5. I've debated my fair share of theory rounds, so I think I feel comfortable evaluating a basic theory debate. Additionally, I have a low threshold for responses against "no RVIs" and friv theory. With that being said, while I will do my best to understand non-topical K positions, high theory, tricks, and counter-plans, I can't promise that you'll like my decision at the end of the round.

6. I debated at a fairly fast pace throughout high school, so speed is fine. if you're gonna be spreading, please use an email-chain. If you don't send a speech doc and you're going too fast for me, I will clear you once and proceed to put my pen down and stop flowing.

8. at a base level, i really enjoyed my time in the debate space. I know I'm one of the lucky ones who was surrounded by great friends and coaches that genuinely cared. My number one goal is always to make that space more accessible to others. For that reason, any exclusionary language or action will result in a loss and the lowest possible speaks tab will let me give you.

good luck!

Saher Lakhani MS LRM None

Daniel Liang HS LJA

Samuel Loh Hire

Last changed on Wed April 20, 2022 at 8:06 PM EDT

*TOC* '22 - Helping some kids out, guess I'm back just for this one tournament

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

Background: Plano West Class of '18, Was affiliated with Hebron ('18-19), Colleyville Heritage ('19-20), The Marist School ('20-21), Worked with debaters from Plano East ('19-21), Coppell ('19-21), Westlake ('19-20), and Walt Whitman ('20-21)

If you're really that curious about anything else check judging record I guess.

My speaks used to average in the mid 27's if that matters

I don't even know why I have to say this, safety is critical to participation, if you make the round unsafe it's a stop the round L0, trip to tab

Top level notes (I.e. Important Stuff):

-I have not been involved in circuit debate since this tournament last year. I have not thought about arguments, I have not done research, I have not coached. My level of competency for fast, technical debates is undoubtedly lower than it used to be

-Arguments and styles that appeal to a lay audience are both good and useful but do not confuse this with the "truth > tech" nonsense. Full link chains are still required and any argument is founded on a warrant. Conceded arguments are 100% true, I don't care how ridiculous you make them out to be. If you think they're non-sensical the burden's on you.

-Speeches are meant to build on top of one another. The role of the rebuttal is to address offense - this means you should be covering turns/disads/etc. in the 2R. No, "sticky defense" is not a thing. What is in summary should be in final focus and vice versa. No new arguments in the second final focus, that's ridiculous.

-You should be weighing. Weighing should be comparative. Weighing is an argument and therefore should be warranted. Weighing should be introduced as. early. as. possible.

-Your backhalf extensions ought to be extensions of the full argument. UQ -> Link -> I. Link -> Impact. Don't forget the warrants or the impact, those are kinda important and tend to be left out more often than not.

-Crossfire does not matter, I do not listen to crossfire, I'm probably writing notes on the ballot. If something important happens in cx bring it up in speech proper

Other Stuff:

-Progressive arguments? Used to be okay with them, now it's a run at your own risk. I probably don't remember much. I was kinda a disclosure and paraphrasing-bad hack but if you win the argument you win the argument. No I will not vote on impact turns that teams should lose for disclosing or cutting cards. Yes you need an offense to win an RVI. Yes you automatically lose if it's competing interps and you don't defend a competing interp. Yes theory is apriori to case.

-Speed? I used to be able to process things pretty quick but I'm old now and out of practice so my brain probably can't handle super speed too well. Go at your own risk.

-Evidence? If I can resolve the round without looking at evidence, I will not call for evidence. I will not call for evidence if the round is difficult to resolve. However, I will call for evidence if I am told to do so and it affects the outcome of the round or if I am told that evidence is misrepresented or miscut. If your evidence ethics are hot steaming garbage that's an easy way to get L20. You've been warned

-Presumption? Used to presume neg, I guess that's still a thing? Convince me otherwise, y'all are debaters.

-Speaks? Speaks for content, I don't care about delivery unless I can't understand you. You get three clears before I put my pen down. If you've disclosed, remind me and I'll bump you.

If you have any other questions please ask. I've undoubtedly forgotten something that's probably important

Jacob Mammen Hire

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 12:54 PM CDT

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

Neha Mullassery MS LRM None

Alyssa Nie MS ZNK

Noah Ogata HS OSZ

Mukund Rao Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 22, 2021 at 4:41 PM CDT

Edit for pwsh 2021: Please make an effort to clearly say what argument you're responding to. Don't just throw out a line and expect me to instantly place it in the context of the round and the argument you want. I am very dumb and slow.

** PF Paradigm**

I debated and did alright. This should be generally listed in order of what I see as important. Email for speech docs/questions you have later is mukundrao9 at gmail

Short stuff

Tech > truth. Exceptions are obvious. Don’t be a terrible person.
Turns must be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns must be extended in 1st summary. If defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal then it also has to be extended in 1st summary.
Please Weigh. I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd ff unless there’s no other weighing in the round.
Please signpost. I expect you to go line by line in every speech. If narrative debate is your thing then please tell me where to flow stuff
I am not perfect. sorry if I mess up

Evidence

Pull up evidence quickly.

1st summary/final focus

1st summary needs to extend all turns you want me to vote off of.
1st summary needs to extend defense if your opponents frontline it in 2nd rebuttal.
1st summary doesn’t need to weigh.
If you’re conceding defense to get out of a turn, it needs to be done in 1st summary.

2nd rebuttal/summary/final focus

2nd rebuttal has to respond to all the turns on your case.
If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, that needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal.
No new evidence to frontline in 2nd summary. Read it in rebuttal.
Your “turns” in rebuttal have to actually turn their case. Please don’t read independent offense in front of me.
2nd summary needs to extend everything you’re going for.
I’ll drop speaks for new args in 2nd ff.

Extensions

Extend arguments not authors. If I don’t have well warranted arguments in summary and final focus, I won’t vote for them.
My threshold for extensions of conceded arguments is pretty low.
Extending author names will make me happy but it’s not necessary.

Disclosure

If you disclosed, tell me before the round. I’ll give you +.5 speaker points.
I won’t hack for disclosure theory. You still have to win the arg.
Don’t run disclosure theory in a round where you know you’ll win anyways.

Theory

I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I’ll probably vote for anything but I might not be happy about that and your speaks might reflect it.
Your best bet is to ask before the round if I’ll be receptive to a certain shell.
If you run theory on novices, I will tank your speaks.
Default is no RVI, but I think in pf it’s really easy to win an RVI so don’t be afraid to go for it.

Other Progressive Args

I’m a fan, but I don’t really know how to evaluate these args. You’ll probably have to do more work on framing in front of me than you would for some other judges.

Speed

I’m a pretty new judge. I can keep up with pf speed (edit: not so sure how true this is anymore), but if you go fast you are taking a risk that I miss something. I will clear you if I can’t understand you and your opponents can do the same.
If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I will not vote off of it.
Send speech docs if you’re going fast.
If you go really fast on paraphrased evidence, I won’t be happy.

Weighing

I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd final focus unless there isn’t any weighing earlier in the round.

Cross

Don’t be rude. Talking over your opponent will not impress me. If I think you’re being condescending I will seriously tank your speaks.

Speaks

My speaks are based off of general strategy. They’re not based off of speaking skills or presentation (except if you’re mean)

Misc.

Pointing out an argument doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense. I’ll be less likely to disregard an unwarranted argument unless you point it out. Don’t take that chance.
Explain why non-responsive arguments are non-responsive.
If you have any questions before the round, don’t be afraid to ask.
If there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you, please tell me.
Pause when you switch flows please!!
Clarity of impact is not a weighing mechanism.

Noah Romo MS LRM

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 6:47 AM EDT

Updated for Plano West 2021

I debated for Cypress Bay and Plano West. I am a second year student at Florida State University.

Email: noahromo17@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth. Now don't go crazy and not read the rest of this because you won't win if you just spread through a bunch of dumb arguments. The way to my ballot is still 100% through warranting your arguments well and weighing. Also, if you are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.5.

Please be conscious of your opponents and audience in the room. If you're reading anything that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger warning or content warning (the best way to do this would be anonymously through a google form or smth).

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, or transphobic, you will be dropped.

Preflow before round, keep track of your time and your opponent's time and don't steal each other's prep.

Don't assume I know the topic well.

You can email me or message me on Facebook with any questions as well and hmu if you need a coach!

Important Stuff:

1. This is first because it is the most important part of debate. WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH. Weighing should be comparative and warranted just like any other argument (Ex: Don't just tell me that your argument should win because your impact has a higher magnitude, tell me why having a higher magnitude makes your argument more important). If I am conflicted between different weighing mechanisms, meta weigh, or else I may default to one mechanism over another and you may not like my decision. I generally enjoy consistency between you and your partner's weighing mechanisms. Also weighing links and warrants is just as important as impact calc. If you don't get it by now, WEIGH because debate is all about comparing your arguments.

2. Speak fast if you want, I know I was a generally fast debater, but I will doc your speaker points if you aren't clear. Speaking slower can also be just as strategic and powerful, especially when it comes to emphasizing certain arguments on my flow. And if you're going to truly spread then I can flow it, but I will drop your speaks if you don't send a speech doc.

3. Any offense you want me to evaluate needs to be extended properly and in both Summary and Final Focus.

4. Whether it's paraphrasing or cut cards, please make sure your evidence is saying what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it and it doesn't say that, it may cost you in a tight round. If your evidence is misrepresented and it's important I may drop you. Also, read dates please.

5. Defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is frontlined in second rebuttal (Now keep in mind that with a 3-minute summary I think important defense should be extended). Note: Turns are offense so they NEED TO be extended in first summary if you want them in final, and they should be responded to in first rebuttal.

6. Turns from first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal, or else they are not frontlined.

7. Organization is key when it comes to giving a cohesive speech. Make sure your speeches are structured and signpost as you go. A roadmap always helps, or just let me know where you're starting.

8. No, I won't evaluate anything that was said in crossfire unless I hear you being excessively rude, belittling, or hateful to your opponents in any way. If you want me to evaluate it, it's gotta be in a speech.

9. If both teams are ok with it I will disclose at the end of the round. Tell me if it's a bubble round and I'll give you both high speaks :)

10. If you are going for turns, remember to extend the impacts and weigh them. And if you extend a link turn, you should extend your opponent's impact if they drop it.

11. A frontline is not a case extension. Extending your link chain and impact is a case extension. You must both extend and frontline if your argument is responded to.

12. I love framing debates, I think they are some of the most educational and interesting debates I have had so don't be afraid to have them. But if you are reading a framing argument, please try to read it in case and not past first rebuttal. Reading a long framing argument, in second rebuttal, that is very critical to the way the round is going to collapse is pretty abusive and it's going to annoy me.

More Progressive Stuff:

1. I liked to read lots of framing arguments, sometimes read shells, and a K every now and then. I also competed in Policy debate sometimes (not saying I was that good though lol). So, I think progressive debate is cool and has a large potential to increase the educational value of public forum, but only if orchestrated correctly. Which means don't read progressive arguments against novices or inexperienced opponents. If you truly believe you are 'so much better' than the team you are facing, let's see you win the round on my flow by weighing and warranting your arguments well because that is how to set a good example for new debaters. I will tank your speaks or possibly drop you if you use any of these arguments to exclude your opponents.

2. I think theory is cool and you should stick to shells that target specific in-round abuses. It's a good idea to ask me before round if I will be receptive to a specific shell. I default to no RVIs/competing interps.

3. So I will evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. But just know that I am not as comfortable with Ks, tricks, and other more nuanced progressive arguments. You can run them and I will try my best to evaluate them, but you should probably go a bit slower when reading them.

4. I will evaluate just about any argument except for a couple of specific ones: Oppression good, death good, and 30 speaker points theory. If you want to know why I believe any of these arguments are bad I am happy to start a dialogue with you. If there are any other specific shells or arguments you wonder if I will be receptive to or not, do not hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

Speaks:

I will generally give out 27-29.

Debaters get too angry nowadays. If you debate well and are lighthearted/funny you will get high speaks. Rounds are always most educational when they not only clash, but everyone is having a good time!

I'll give you a 30 if you really impress me or make a funny reference to a good rapper (Whatever rapper you reference though has to have BARS, I'm talking five fingers of death bars).

Jokes and funny debates are my favorite. I personally thought debate was the most fun part of high school because it's like this awesome game of four-dimensional chess. So don't let frustrations get to you because enjoying your rounds is by far most important.

I'll intervene as little as possible because I want you to decide my ballot for me.

Ask me before round if you have any specific questions.

Andy Shufer MS SCV

Kaleb Simes Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 11, 2022 at 4:39 AM CDT

Conflicts: Prosper High School

Background Overview

President of SMU Debate Team and competes in Varsity IPDA
Attended Sam Houston State University and currently attend SMU
Competed in LD and Extemp for 3 years (UIL and TFA State level)
Graduated from Prosper High School

Arguments Ran

- Kritik

- Disads

- Theory Shells(rarely)

- PICS

- Counterplans

- Stock Cases

Email for Email chain: kalebsimes01@gmail.com

LD aspect/ argument qualifications on a scale of 1 to 5( 1= really good; 5= not good)

Speed: 1( I really don't care how fast you go. Just make sure that you slow way down on tags, signpost, and send please send me the case).

Stock Cases/ Issues: 1( down to hear anything)

Kritiks: 2( I only started reading kritiks in my junior year so I'm not as up to date with all the prevalent authors(nor am I a complete expert), but I know how they should be structured and I really like them. Please don't let that shy you away from reading them in front of me though. Just make sure that you thoroughly explain the premise of the kritik and it should be fine.) If you prove that you have a solid link, I will be more willing to evaluate its' validity.

K affs: 2( I really like k affs as it became my favorite aff structure later on in my senior year. My standard of K affs is the same as normal Ks

Disads: 1( I really like disads, and wish I could have run them more in high school. As long as the disad is made properly, it should be fine.)

PIC'S: 3( I'm not a huge fan of PIC's, but I'll listen to them.)

Counterplans: 2

Theory: 3/4( I really don't like theory because a theory debate gets really boring and most of the time unnecessary. Also, I rarely ran theory so I'm definitely not an expert on it, but I have an alright understanding of it. If you ultimately take the chance and read theory in front of me, make sure the abuse in the round is clear(not generic), and DO NOT SPREAD THE SHELL. If you do,then I will either miss the important implications of the shell, or not flow it.

* If I am your judge for policy, be aware that I have not competed in policy, but I have judged it and my understanding in the above areas is essentially the same. Since it has been a while since I have been on the circuit, bare with me and be sure to thoroughly explain all the arguments you run as I get reacclimated.

Things I'll be more likely to vote on

Framework: If you lose the framework debate, that doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you opponent, however, make sure you give me significant, alternative reasons to vote for you

Offense: If you consistently generate offense throughout the rounds, then I'll most likely vote for you.

Conceded Arguments: Regardless to where the conceded argument occurs, if you or your opponent concede an argument and you or your opponent adequately explains to me why it is extremely significant (impact it out), then I will immediately be inclined to vote on that concession depending on magnitude/significance.

Creativity: I will be more inclined to vote on an argument or case if it is more creative and interesting than what is commonly being read. That doesn't mean I won't vote for the common arguments but creativity helps.

Attitude/ Behavior: If you are just rude to your opponent or offensive in any way, I will immediately/most likely down you and that will be it.

Overall, I'm a pretty laid back judge that is down to hear anything as long as it is thoroughly explained. I want you to run whatever that you are comfortable with because I know debate is typically more about advancing than the education it can produce nowadays, but please take my paradigm into heavy consideration. Good luck!

Mitchell Thorsell Hire 8 rounds

Carlyn Yang Hire

Jason Zhang Hire

Michelle Zhang MS ZNK

Last changed on Wed March 25, 2020 at 6:14 AM CDT

I graduated from Plano West in 2019.

Preflow before the round please!

Speed is fine insofar as you are articulate and clear

I also don't like teams that speak quickly to card dump - card dumping doesn't make you a better debater, and I will drop every card you read without a warrant

Important things:

1. Second rebuttal does not need to respond to first rebuttal, but I highly advise for you to do so strategy-wise

2. No independent unrelated contentions in rebuttal - DAs that are related to your opponent's contentions are fine

3. First summary does not need to extend defense if it not responded to by second rebuttal

4. Hierarchy of arguments: carded warrants > uncarded warrant > carded but unwarranted empirics/statistics. If there's no warrant (carded or not), I won't vote for it

5. Always extend warrants. Saying the name of the card's author does not count as extending the warrant. I'd prefer you repeat the warrant and leave out the card name (I'll extend the card on the flow for you) than you saying "extend [card name]" and moving on

6. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Please use the extra minute in summary to do weighing/in-depth analysis. Weighing mechanisms should be set up in summary at the latest (feel free to start weighing in rebuttal!). If it's not in summary, I won't evaluate it in final focus. I also won't vote on new weighing mechanisms introduced in final focus unless I absolutely need to. If you don't weigh I'll just weigh on whatever I feel like

7. Collapse in summary. Frontlining =/= extending a contention. You must frontline AND extend the claim, warrant, impacts of your contention. "This argument is unwarranted" is an acceptable frontline

8. Terminalize your impacts - tell me why your impacts matter to me and to the round

9. Misconstrued evidence is my worst pet peeve. I'd prefer for case cards to not be paraphrased. Paraphrasing is fine in rebuttals, etc, but don't misconstrue. If you have statistics for your impact and they end up 100x larger or the scope suddenly changes by the time it's final focus, I won't evaluate it and I'll dock speaks

10. I won't evaluate new arguments in 2nd final focus. If your delink suddenly becomes a turn, or your impact suddenly becomes a million times bigger, or your link suddenly has a new "nuance" in 2nd final focus, I will drop the entire argument, so you might as well just keep the original argument

11. I won't vote for disclosure theory

12. Speaks: 28-30 unless you're condescending, sexist, racist, rude, misconstrue evidence etc. Please don't extend rounds by 20 mins by pulling up cards; if it takes unnecessarily long to pull up cards you will see docks in speaks

Evidence: I will call for evidence if it’s important in the round and either 1) anyone tells me to call for it or 2) I think it might be misconstrued based on previous knowledge. I know that as the round progresses sometimes cards get power tagged accidentally, and that’s fine, but if you straight up clip your cards or misconstrue them heavily I’ll dock your speaks and also possibly drop you

Theory: Don’t really know the tech side of theory and also really REALLY hate the trend of some teams running theory to confuse opponents instead of actually checking back abuse. If you want to check back abuse just explain the abuse and why I should drop the arg/debater intuitively.

If you have any questions, ask before round.

Yizhen Zhen HS OSZ

Login to Tabroom

Plano West Camp Tournament 2019

2019 — Plano, TX/US

Open Debate Paradigm List

Judges