LBJ Jaguar TFA Qualifier
2024 — Austin, TX/US
World Schools Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.
Email:
brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!
Worlds:
I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.
PF:
Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.
LD/CX:
Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.
Speech:
I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.
Harvard update (2/12/2024)
Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.
You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.
I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.
I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).
Some info about me:
Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003
Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007
Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017
Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present
Updated 1/3/2024
Top level observations for all debate events:
-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.
-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.
-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.
-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.
-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.
Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.
Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.
LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.
PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain
Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.
I’ll evaluate the round in whatever framework you place me in, and I’m fine with judging whatever form of argumentation you feel like presenting. However, I strongly prefer that you make that framework explicit — tell me what to vote on and why.
I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round.
Stylistically, I’m fine with speed as long as taglines and analysis are clear. If there is a clarity issue (not just speed but diction, volume, etc.), I won’t call clear or put down my pen; I'll continue attempting to flow and what doesn’t make it onto the flow won’t be evaluated — it’s your responsibility to make sure that I can understand you. **NOTE: in an online format, I’m much more lenient about speech clarity — if I can’t understand you due to mic issues, etc. I’ll let you know in the chat. I'll follow the TFA guidelines for tech time (10 minutes of tech time) for most rounds. Beyond this time, we will start running prep.**
I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, delineation between arguments, etc.
Add me to the email chain — my email is colbymenefee@utexas.edu. Also feel free to email me if you have any questions about your ballot, the round, etc. Do not email me paradigm questions before the round — I’m glad to discuss my paradigm further and answer specific questions in-round, where your opponent can also hear my answers.
I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.
That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.
In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.
I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.
On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.
Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.
Clements '22 | UT '26
4 years of PF, state and nats quals, etc etc.
put me on the chain: krastogi4444@gmail.com
TLDR: do what you want, have fun, be respectful. im pretty flow
any form of bigotry is entirely unacceptable and will immediately result in an L25.
PF
Case
- pretty straightforward do what you want
- send case with cards before you speak
- framing should be read here
Rebuttal
- anything not responded to here is considered conceded
- please send docs, especially if you're spreading or reading new offs
Summary
- by far the most important speech
- if you haven't started weighing already, definitely start doing it now
- any voters in final must be in summary. if it's not here i dont care about it
- extensions are more than just "extend x card/author/arg" i need claim-uniqueness-warrant-link-impact
- defense is NOT sticky now that speeches are 3 minutes. that means defense must be re-extended in every speech that follows any offense
Final Focus
- like above, if its not in summary, i dont care if its in the final. if its in the final but wasn't in summary, i don't care
- please mirror summary in both content and order
- weighing should have started earlier; the only new weighing i'll evaluate in FF is meta-weighing, which requires warranting as to why i should prefer one mech over another. it is NOT just yelling mechanisms at me
Extra
- cross is binding so long as you bring it up in a speech
- speed is fine as long as i have a doc. however, i will only flow if the speech is comprehensible; i will say clear once and if it doesn't get clearer i probably wont flow how you want.
- i will not look at any evidence unless i am explicitly told to do so. poor evidence ethics will tank speaks but will not lose a round, unless that argument is made
- i don't have much experience with progressive argumentation but i am happy to evaluate it. keep in mind i may not evaluate it how you want me to, so probably not a great idea to read 7 off
- be nice to novices, you can beat them without being rude and condescending
- i'll evaluate TKOs. If at any point in the round (post constructives) you think the opponent has NO routes to the ballot, the round will immediately end and you get a W30. However, if I think the opponent has any route to the ballot, you get an L25. High risk, high reward.
WSD
- I try to appoint speaks as fairly as possible according to each category. However, if you are losing every argument, you will not win a round just because you had a better strategy. Thus, I will retroactively adjust points as necessary.
- the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
- the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
- each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
- i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to start at the latest in the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
- if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing in any of them, i will not evaluate it
- I used to have a longer paradigm but it was deleted. feel free to ask if you have any questions