Tabroom.com

The Wildcat Winter Whirlwind Plano Swing

2024 — Plano, TX/US

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rich Bordner Hire

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:19 AM CDT

I have degrees in philosophy, but am a lay judge.

More specifically:
1) *If you spread, you risk losing my vote. Not just that....speak at a normal pace. Slow down. I realize this might cramp your style, but that's me. If I have an email chain doc in front of me, I can manage speed. It's just that I vastly prefer a debate spoken at normal rate of speech. It's more enjoyable, just as a meal eaten at a normal rate of speed is more enjoyable when compared to a quickly inhaled meal. If one competitor spreads and the other does not, all else being equal, that's a mark against the former competitor in my book.

2) Go easy on the debate jargon. I get the technicalities of debate, but I weigh overall persuasiveness and cogency of argument more. In other words, just because you have no dropped arguments and your opponent has one or two, or this or that argument of your opponent's is not topical, that is not automatically decisive. Remember, I'm a lay judge. Make an effort to explain it to me in a commonsense way that the average person can get, sans the jargon that those in the in crowd speak to each other.

3) Even though my background is philosophy, I do not go for theory debates high on K and academic jargon. Clarity is supreme, as is simplicity (this is different from dumbing something down and making a 'simple-minded' case.).

4) When it comes to your framework and value, I prefer you picking an actual ethical or meta-ethical system (Kantian/deontology, Utilitarian/Consequentialist, Divine Command, Aristotelian Eudaimonia, Virtue Ethics, Subjectivism, Communist, Critical Theory/Postmodernism, Egoism, Emotivism, etc etc etc), and building your case based on that, rather than sloganeering such as "my value is morality." ***Clarification: point #3 above still stands. You should make your value and framework understandable, rather than using terms only the few will be able to follow.

5) Speaking of: Clarity counts big time! Define your terms precisely, if you define your terms in a circular way (ex: "justice=acting justly."), or if you show that you lack understanding of your basic framework or criteria (ex: you reject your opponent's framework of utilitarianism, yet state your framework as "maximizing wellbeing for the most people," well, that's utilitarianism, or at least pretty close to it, which you just rejected), you have just dug yourself into a pretty big hole, one that will be mighty hard to dig out of, no matter how many arguments your opponent drops.

6) Your warrant should be quality, and you should be able to explain at length *how* your warrant supports your contention. Connect the dots for me. Don't leave me with the impression that you are setting up non sequiturs. You are the speaker, so you must do that work....don't leave it up to me to try to connect it all together. Also be able to defend why I should listen to your source. What qualifies him/her as knowledgeable?

Emma Cagle THEO Christian

Janizelle Esquivel Garland High School

Diana Garcia Hire

Frank Hasper Grapevine High School

Ashley Hendrickson Hire None

David Huston Jasper High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CDT

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Kanza Jafri Prosper High School

Aryan Jasani Hire

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 3:45 PM EDT

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Indiana University(IN),

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Akhil Kher Flower Mound High School None

Smitha Kotteeri Vines High School None

Delia Major Plano West Sr High School None

Robert Marchant Plano East Sr. High

Thomas Mathai Plano West Sr High School

William Mathison Colleyville Heritage High School

Robert Perry Coppell High School

Demarcus Powell Greenhill School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:48 AM CDT

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Tristan Rios Greenhill School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM EDT

Tristan Rios (they/them)

BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email

Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain

for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar

who on hell is Tristan?

I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)

last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams

I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) but I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.

Non-negotiables

- misgendering

- trigger warnings

- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater

General Thoughts/Preferences

generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

Speaks

if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks

if u open source + 0.1 speaks

Note for LD:

i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences

Hannah Rodriguez Walnut Grove High School

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 5:14 AM CDT

email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com

pronouns- she/her

Coaching & Competitor History

(2023-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Prosper High School

(2018-2021): Policy Debate competitor, Princeton

Background:I approach debates with an emphasis on critical analysis, deconstruction of power structures, and engagement with alternative frameworks. My judging philosophy is centered around evaluating debates that delve into issues beyond the policy-oriented or traditional arguments. I appreciate debates that challenge mainstream ideologies, interrogate assumptions, and offer unique perspectives.

Deep Analysis: I value depth over breadth. I prefer in-depth analysis and thorough explanation of critical arguments rather than superficial coverage of multiple arguments.

Open-Mindedness: While I have a preference for critical arguments, I am open to all forms of debate. If traditional or policy-focused arguments are presented effectively, I will evaluate them accordingly.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing. If you are SPREADING through tag lines I AM NOT LISTENING !

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold for abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.

Counterplans: I don’t judge kick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.

Shishir Waghray Jasper High School

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 10:49 AM CDT

Email Chain-- shishirwaghray@gmail.com

About Me: [Plano West '20]

Hello! I competed for Plano West for 4 years, mainly in LD on the TFA and national circuits. I also briefly did policy towards the latter half of my debate career. I strive to be as tabula rasa as possible in my judging philosophy. Below is my paradigm. Please ask me questions as you see fit.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Quick Prefs:

Policy (Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc.) - 1

T & Theory - 1 or 2

K/K Affs - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4/Strike

*Note: I am familiar with all of these arguments-- this scale simply reflects my personal preferences. Feel free to run what you want...I'll keep up. Ideally I would be a 1 for all of these, but it's merely a personal preference.

____________________________________________________________________________________

**LD/CX Paradigm**

General Stuff-

-Tech > Truth: good strategy, great engagement with the flow, extension of warrants/offense, and line-by-lining go a long way towards making me vote for you.

-Weighing: Do it well and do it frequently. Have weighing mechanisms that make sense within the context of the round. Generally, this is what separates some of the really good debates observed throughout my career vs the really poor ones. Good evaluative mechanisms are also appreciated.

-Warrants: Be sure to provide clear and concise warrants as to why something is true and why I should be voting off of it. Extend warrants through all speeches and towards the back-half of the round.

-Signposting: it's really important that you say where you are on the flow throughout the round.

-Strategic Collapsing: Again, quality over quantity of arguments here. Rather than trying to win off every single argument, pick the few that are the most strategic in round and go for those. Additionally, tell me why those are the most important and why I should vote off of them.

-Framework: Whether this is an ROB, traditional V/C, or something else, good framework debate is something I enjoy.

-I generally tend to vote off of substantive offense...this is the best way to get to my ballot

Speed:

Spreading is generally fine with me, but make sure that if you're going to spread, that it is clear. I'll say "clear" once before I start docking speaker points. You might want to slow down a little on analytics, taglines, theory interps, and plan texts just to make sure I don't miss anything.

Framing:

-Doesn't really matter what this will be, whether it is a value/criterion, ROB, or something else. It should be well explained and extended in the 1AR/2NR. Additionally, your weighing mechanisms should be clearly delineated and filtered through the lens of a framework if you're running a stock case, critical position, or ideally most LARP positions.

Post-Round: I will end up disclosing my decision at the end of the round, and am open to any questions/concerns about the RFD. Contrary to what other judges think, I believe that post-rounding is good as it keeps judges accountable and makes them justify the decision.

Case Structures-

*In general, run whatever you want--I'll vote on most things as long as the debate is done well*

Policy/LARP: I really like this debate style, and it is what I have read upwards of 80% of the time throughout my own debate career. With that being said, there are a couple pointers. Try to be creative here as there is so much topic ground for you to cover. I'd like to see good comparison of evidence/internal warrants of cards in rounds as well as good weighing. These make for interesting debates.

- Creative and nuanced econ, politics, or geopolitical scenarios will be rewarded with good speaks. Nuanced means something other than the same extinction scenario or surface level political analysis.

1.) Plans: Must have a clear representation of what the world looks like and good solvency mechanisms. Absent explicit framing, I default to a basic util/policymaking FW. Having good warrants and weighing mechanisms are crucial here.

2.) CP/PIC: I prefer case specific CPs over generic ones. Must include solvency evidence and net benefits. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory. I won't "judge kick" the CP for you.

• I enjoy some of the more arcane CPs such as Agent, Conditions, Process, Delay, Consult, and Conditions, but be prepared to win the theory debate on these.

• CPs with just the text and no evidence underneath are a waste of time. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory, and >3 condo is probably abusive.

• Perms are a test of competition. I'd rather see one well warranted perm than 8 blippy perms.

3.) DA: Uniqueness evidence, good link chain, and tangible impacts are crucial to a good DA. 1 card DAs, Bad link chains or outlandish impacts are unlikely to get my ballot.

• Politics DAs are probably my favorite, given that they have good links, tangible impacts, and substantive/nuanced knowledge of the politics. This does not mean reading some generic garbage from openev, but rather having an understanding of the political process. I keep up with politics quite a bit, and can tell if your link chains/impacts are nonsensical.

Kritiks: While I primarily read policy style arguments, I've admittedly had decent experience with Ks as well. I'm decently familiar with most of the commonly read authors including Baudrillard, Wilderson, Warren, Deleuze & Guattari,, Tuck & Yang, etc.

-High Theory & PoMo > IDPol > Generics (e.g. Cap, Security, etc.)

-Things I HATE: Backfile K Debate, Vague/generic links to the aff, unclear explanation of what the alt looks like, unclear explanation of the lit ("buzzword, buzzword, buzzword..." won't cut it!) overly long/scripted overviews, unwarranted independent voters.

-Things I want to see: Clear Link, Specific/tangible explanation of Alt, ROB provided as an overarching portion of the K. I like seeing good K debates with in-depth knowledge of the literature at hand.

-I like seeing good K debates. I think understanding your critical position and clearly being able to articulate it separates good debaters from unskilled hacks.

-Do most of the work on the line-by-line instead of having really long and scripted overview.

-I enjoy good methods debates in response to most critical positions.

-I'll evaluate K Tricks such as root cause, can't weigh case, V2L, floating PIKs (must be set up in the neg block or the 1NC for LD), etc.

T/Theory:

Defaults: Competing Interps/No RVI/Education > Fairness/T > Theory/Meta Theory > Theory.

-In general, there needs to be a clear procedural abuse for me to vote off theory. Otherwise, I'll end up making theory a wash and voting off substance. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory as I think it detracts from more substantive debates, and my threshold for responses on a friv shell is a lot lower than a normal one.

-On Topicality: I'm hard pressed to grant an RVI here, more so than I am on other shells.

-I think disclosure is a good norm and am inclined to buy disclosure theory. With that being said, I'm far more sympathetic to small schools as I think they're at a strategic disadvantage to big school prepouts and the like.

-No default on DTD vs. DTA... I think that is for you to articulate to me which one I should go forward with.

-Reasonability is a question of the aff's counter-interp, not whether the aff is "reasonably topical"

K Affs: Go for it, although you should have good justifications for your model of debate, and why debating that specific aff in a certain round is good.

-I prefer affirmatives that are creatively topical or tangentially related to the resolution rather than straight up nontopical.

-If you're going to run a performance, you should have good justifications for what the specific performance accomplishes not just within debate in general, but also that round in particular.

-In K Aff v. TFW debates, I ideologically side with T Framework (probably around 60/40). This doesn't mean that all clash debates will lead me voting in this direction, and I don't let my personal preferences cloud my judgement of the round, but you should be prepared to answer this well and have good justifications for why your model of debate as well as your aff (performative or otherwise) is good.

Phil/Tricks: I'll evaluate these, but I'm not the best judge for these types of debates, given that I didn't really compete in or evaluate these types of debates most frequently. That's not to say that you can't run these, but just that you'll probably have to slow down a little, over-explain, and that I might not give the most coherent RFD at the end.

Traditional/Lay Stuff: Not much to say here. I’ll evaluate it. Just make sure to have a V/C (LD) and weigh stuff I guess. If you can do progressive debate though, I’d much rather listen to that.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker Points/Misc.-

26-30-- 26= Poor | 30=exceptional. Most average debaters will fall around 28-28.4 speaks. Unclear speaking will result in docked speaker points.

*On rare occasions, you might receive a 25 for a couple reasons.

1.) Being unnecessarily rude to your opponent. This includes being overly aggressive or hostile to novices if you're an experienced debater.

2.) If you ask me to give you 30 speaks.

Stuff I Won't Vote On:

-Evaluate after [X] speech.

-Things that happened outside of the round.

-Unwarranted independent voter blips.

Login to Tabroom

The Wildcat Winter Whirlwind Plano Swing

2024 — Plano, TX/US

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm List

Judges