Joseph Collatos Paradigm

Last changed 9 September 2021 7:11 AM CDT

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.

If you quote Thomas Jefferson or use him as a source, you will get downed by me...

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. I normally do not award half points, because who wants to deal with that?


LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. IF you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to you!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(9 times out of 8,yes you read that correctly, I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. If you opp calls you out and it’s good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. You can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or your piece may have a powerful line that I react to or the piece is cleverly written so I laugh, despite the performance. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful. I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everyone is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experience the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Salado Online UIL 3 Oct 16th HS 2021-10-16 VCX R1 BSISD Payton Wollert & Harper Duran Burnet Grace Gates & Hayden Brown Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 CX R3 102 133 Aff Aff 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 CX R2 134 214 Neg Neg 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 CX R1 263 199 Aff Aff 2-0
Yellow Rose District Tournament HS 2021-02-25 CX Semis 181 117 Neg Neg 2-1
Yellow Rose District Tournament HS 2021-02-25 CX Quarte 242 269 Neg Neg 3-0
Yellow Rose District Tournament HS 2021-02-25 LD R2 126 121 Aff
Yellow Rose District Tournament HS 2021-02-25 CX R1 178 123 Aff
Yellow Rose District Tournament HS 2021-02-25 LD R1 153 176 Neg
Lindale Invitational HS 2021-01-13 NCX R4 John Horn Sydney Fillmore & Micayla Nixon Bangs Caedmon Tidwell & Buenaventura Castaneda Neg
Lindale Invitational HS 2021-01-13 VCX R3 Union Grove ISD Brendon Fuller & Daytona Vaughn Hallsville Robert Underwood & Courtney Hardie Neg
Lindale Invitational HS 2021-01-13 VCX R2 Argyle Logan Harper & Rin Langford Odessa Permian Suzette Trujillo & Alison Blount Neg
Lindale Invitational HS 2021-01-13 VCX R1 Joshua Diesel Keeling & Brianna Blanco Clyde Trevor Cate & Kadyn Kevil Neg
Clear Creek HS HS 2021-01-10 PF Semis Tompkins DL Bellaire LJ Neg
Clear Creek HS HS 2021-01-10 NLD Rd4 Clear Lake RM George Ranch PC Aff
Clear Creek HS HS 2021-01-10 NLD Rd2 Clear Brook AS Friendswood JS Aff
West Hardin UIL HS 2020-12-02 VCX R3 Big Spring Wesley Schmidt & Jack Hamby Shadow Creek Ali Kamal & Abdullah Cheema Aff
West Hardin UIL HS 2020-12-02 VCX R1 Caddo Mills Emily Baxter & Emma Press West Hardin Willa Brackin & Kimberlann Gilley Aff
Lindale Fall TFA HS 2020-09-16 NCX R3 St Mark's School of Texas Anderson Selinger & Ahsan Tahirkheli Westwood Floria Xu & Esha Venkat Aff
A and M Consolidated Alief Kerr TFA Swing and NIETOC Qualifier HS 2020-09-09 VCX Semis Atascocita PT San Angelo Central RU Neg Neg 3-0
A and M Consolidated Alief Kerr TFA Swing and NIETOC Qualifier HS 2020-09-09 VCX R1 Fort Bend Austin CG Atascocita CS Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R8 K227 K452 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R8 K504 K515 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R7 K651 K508 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R7 K483 K693 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R6 K462 K640 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R6 K543 K270 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R5 K660 K247 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R5 K301 K140 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 XDB R5 K672 K581 Aff