Joseph Wofford Paradigm

Last changed 4 March 2021 9:59 AM CDT

Top level// TLDR

Preferred pronouns: they/them

I debated policy for three years at aubrey high school. I currently coach there and do some other policy oriented work. I am a first year out - I have judged about 50 rounds. My sole focus is pretty much policy debate - I debate NFA- LD at UNT but it is nothing like policy or high school LD, beyond the titles of the arguments.

if You are going for T and theory- or spreading through some other paragraph sized bullet points- you need to do a couple things for me- give me space between arguments and make it really clear that you are making a new argument and what it is supposed to answer i.e "they said 'x' I have three answers 1. 'answer' 2.'answer' 3. 'answer.'" If you don't do this for me and I miss something- or I think i missed something- I will err towards the side that cleaned up the debate for me.

Yao Yao Chen said something a lot of people quote for good reason - “If you have little time before a debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best… I would rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences.”

Unlike Yao Yao tho- I prefer one off K debates. And I won’t say go as fast as you want- you probably should give me more pen time then you usually would for other folks on taglines, CP texts, theory, perm texts etc. although I do not really care how fast you go through the evidence itself.

I really appreciate judge direction- it is probably the best thing you can do for yourself in front of me- I often find myself at the end of debates where both sides have won certain arguments- but have failed to explain what the implications of those arguments are for how I should resolve the other sub debates.

I’m not sure if I have developed a routine for evaluating rounds- it is very important that both teams tell me what they won, why they won, and what that means for the round/ for what my ballot should look like. I’ll try to defer to what is on my flow to the best of my abilities.

I enjoy answering questions after the round. I don’t enjoy rude people, if we all treat each other kindly then I will answer questions till I am blue in the face. And everyone should feel free to email me at any point with any questions.

My email (which you should put on the chain) is: debatethek@gmail.com

Online debate stuff:

I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.

I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”

There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.

Topicality:

This is my least favorite kind of debate- but mostly because I have never gone for T. I am slowly growing to appreciate T debates.

I think that fairness is probably an internal link to an impact- but not an impact in it’s own right, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise.

I think that reasonablity is an argument that begs the question of whether or not the counter interpretation is reasonable- not whether the aff is reasonably topical.

I think impact calculus is really important for me here- you should err on the side of overexplanation of your impact and weighing for me.

Framework-

I usually vote for the team that does the better weighing- if an aff wins that there is some sort of external disad to framework but then doesn’t do the work to weigh that impact versus the impacts the neg goes for then It becomes very difficult to vote aff.

Similarly when the negative wins risk of offense but then doesn’t sufficiently weigh that offense against that of the affirmative it is very hard to vote negative.

I don’t think that the TVA has to resolve the entirety of the aff- but I do think that it is important that it captures some of the affirmative offense.

I have voted negative on framework one time- and there wasn’t a TVA- but I will still say that I think the TVA makes the neg’s life a lot easier.

I think that negative teams should make more arguments about how a good stasis point is necessary to resolving the impacts of the aff.

I think that too many teams get stuck into defending their model - instead of comparing models- good affs are able to make arguments that they generate better education or have better access to procedural fairness- good negative teams are able to explain why the aff interp bites the link and what their model does better and why I should prefer it.

Kritiks:

Just like every other judge- I think that specificity is key- the more specific your link evidence is to the aff the more I will be persuaded by the kritik

however - I think that contextualization can be just as good as specificity- all I am looking for is language that emphasizes what the aff does to trigger an impact- and why the aff is a really bad iteration of that.

A lot of teams contextualization devolves into descriptions of the status quo- which, while these descriptions are often frightening, and enlightening, they fail to explain what the affs specific relation to their kritik is.

I don’t think debate should happen in the overview- you should do as much work as possible to describe your kritik on the line by line- it makes it so much easier for me to flow.

I am a sucker for link turns case arguments- I just ask that they be thoroughly explained if you want to go for them.

I don’t think that you necessarily need to win an alternative to win the debate- but you do have to win a reason why the link/impact debate necessitates my ballot absent one.

It is not hard to convince me that affs shouldn’t get a perm in method debates- but it is also not hard to convince me they should get perms.

Kevin Hirn said a couple things I really agree with:

  1. “Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions)”.

  2. “Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.”

counterplans -

I think that PICS are probably good

I think that process debates are interesting.

I judged a prelim at stanford this year where a kid may have won the debate in an overview- and then got mad that I didn’t evaluate their blippy cross extension onto the CP solvency flow- so this is my warning- I am not a good judge for super fast overviews explaining counterplan solvency- I would much rather you do that on the lbl- i.e explain CP solvency while answering solvency deficits to the CP.

Disads-

I usually give the neg a risk of the disad- but i can be convinced there is zero risk.

I think you have a better shot of convincing me that there is 0 risk of a link than you do convincing me that there is zero risk of an impact.

Comparative impact calculus is key for my ballot- you have to tell me why your thing happens- why its worse etc,

You should definitely be doing the work to tell me how to evaluate impacts at some point- i,e probability first and why etc.

Tricks : (this section was written with LD in mind)

I am not a good judge for one line arguments that aren’t explained thoroughly- and I am an even worse judge for teams whose apparent goal is for the aff to concede “3a. Determinism means util auto negates”

I guess I am down to have debates where the neg strategy is 4 minutes on one line from the nc but I have a couple stipulations.

  1. I think the argument should be complete when it is introduced- if it isnt then the aff should be able to get away with saying- that’s not an argument and moving on.

  2. I have to have that argument on my flow before the final speech- i,e if i missed it in the first speech because you didnt give me the pen time or because you sent paragraph form theory blocks instead of numbering each separate arg- then I will not vote it

Misc-

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends and I'll increase your speaks by .2.

If you say anything about "evidence theft" I'm going to actually scream- it's not offense, and if y'all go to a big school (larger than 100 graduating class) you need to check ur privilege, paywalls are a thing, and not everyone has hours to spend getting around them.

Trigger warnings are super important- descriptions of violence should probably have a trigger warning, you never know who has experienced the problems you're talking about first hand. No highlighting around descriptions of violence does change that, Idk about y'all but sometimes I just be reading the other teams cards so I can cut CP's or what have you.

Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices, I get that y'all are stressed about breaking so you can get your TOC/TFA qual, but like.... U shud know when ur winning a round. Don't make debate an exclusive activity.

Extra speaker points if you make good jokes.

I will love you if your overview does more than just "lemme describe my case to you again... Just in case you forgot"

If you misgender ppl consistently, I'll probably vote you down.

Absolutely no racist, sexist, or anti Queer rhetoric- I’ll probably slash your speaks and may drop you depending on how egregious i find the offense.

If you clip in front of me- I will destroy your speaks.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Janet Melton Memorial UIL Invitational HS 2021-03-20 VLD Semis Salado Lexi Glenn Bandera Donavan Brown Aff Aff 3-0
Janet Melton Memorial UIL Invitational HS 2021-03-20 VLD R6 Bandera Rodrigo G.Gonzalez Banquete Mateo Rios Neg
Janet Melton Memorial UIL Invitational HS 2021-03-20 VLD R5 Joshua Joseph Couey Grand Saline Trent Edralin Aff
Janet Melton Memorial UIL Invitational HS 2021-03-20 VLD R3 Bandera Gunnar Winkler Banquete Ezequiel Baltierra Aff
Janet Melton Memorial UIL Invitational HS 2021-03-20 VLD R2 Liberty Hill Andrew Cucinotta Princeton Emily Copeland Neg
Janet Melton Memorial UIL Invitational HS 2021-03-20 VLD R1 Liberty Hill Audrey Itz North Mesquite Crystal Lin Neg
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 CX R3 Langham Creek CL Winston Churchill KO Neg
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 CX R2 Reagan KR Sandra Day O'Connor WL Aff
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 CX R1 Reagan MW Winston Churchill AD Neg
Heart of Texas HS 2021-02-27 JVCX R6 St Mark's School of Texas HP Westwood PO Neg
Heart of Texas HS 2021-02-27 JVCX R5 St Mark's School of Texas KZ Jesuit JR Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2021-02-27 JVCX R4 Wichita East RL Notre Dame GU Neg
Heart of Texas HS 2021-02-27 JVCX R3 Damien LP St Mark's School of Texas ML Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2021-02-27 JVCX R2 Univ Of Chicago Lab BC Westwood GS Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2021-02-27 JVCX R1 St Mark's School of Texas DP Westwood TT Neg
West Oklahoma District Tournament HS 2021-02-13 CX R3 178 235 Aff
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-T Semifi Harvard-Westlake SM Harker AR Aff Aff 2-1
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-T Octafi Bellarmine EG Harker AL Neg Neg 2-1
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-CA Octafi West Ranch VP Nova 42 SJ Neg Neg 2-1
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-T Triple Dougherty Valley AG Bronx Science DB Aff Aff 2-1
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-T R6 Immaculate Heart RR Harker GS Aff
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-T R5 Harker AA Dougherty Valley DC Neg
35th Annual Stanford Invitational HS 2021-02-06 LD-T R1 Evergreen Valley LP Harker PG Neg
Aubrey UIL Academic Invitational HS 2021-01-23 CX R4 Saginaw Kailyn Smith & Abigail Palin Argyle Logan Harper & Rin Langford Aff
Aubrey UIL Academic Invitational HS 2021-01-23 CX R3 McGregor Justin Gilliland & Riley Martin Argyle Tristan Ball & Billy Mykel Neg
Aubrey UIL Academic Invitational HS 2021-01-23 CX R2 Independence Ayan Khan & Anum Khan Joshua Camryn Carey & Vivian Bivens Aff
Aubrey UIL Academic Invitational HS 2021-01-23 CX R1 Kennnedale Merveille Bajika & Sawyer Rabalais J.W. Nixon Brevin Binas & Ariana Arias Aff
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 Pol Octos LanTec NP Reagan AG Neg Neg 2-1
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 Pol R4 Dulles JD DCPEP AM Aff
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 Pol R3 Reagan AG LanCre DI Aff
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 NCX R2 Westwo MS SMSOT DJ Neg
The Longhorn Classic Online HS 2020-12-04 NCX R5 Hendrickson Yedavalli & Duvvuri Jesuit Corrigan & Farragut Aff
The Longhorn Classic Online HS 2020-12-04 NCX R4 Heritage Hall Kodali & Gish Liberal Arts and Science Ghatty & Moore Aff
NYCUDL High School Tournament 2 Sponsored by Kobre Kim HS 2020-11-21 BCX R2 Columbia Secondary COMPASS Ju & Francfort Susan E. Wagner HS Elbar & Rodriguez Aff
NYCUDL High School Tournament 2 Sponsored by Kobre Kim HS 2020-11-21 BCX R1 Columbia Secondary COMPASS Harris & Cohen Long Branch Barbosa de Lima & Garcia Aff
UNT John S Gossett Memorial High School Tournament HS 2020-10-30 PF Final Coppell SS Colleyville Heritage SL Neg Neg 2-1
UNT John S Gossett Memorial High School Tournament HS 2020-10-30 PF Semi Westwood WG Colleyville Heritage SL Aff Neg 2-1
UNT John S Gossett Memorial High School Tournament HS 2020-10-30 PF R3 Westlake CK Coppell SS Aff
UNT John S Gossett Memorial High School Tournament HS 2020-10-30 PF R2 Westwood WG Westlake KK Aff
UNT John S Gossett Memorial High School Tournament HS 2020-10-30 PF R1 Westlake LR Westwood QN Neg
Medina Valley TFA IQT HS 2020-10-24 CX R4 Steven Berthiaume & Jakob Davenport Daniel Morgan & Dani Perez Neg
Medina Valley TFA IQT HS 2020-10-24 CX R3 Patrick Garza & Magdalena Delafuente Mitchell Lurtz & Anderson Schroeder Neg
Medina Valley TFA IQT HS 2020-10-24 CX R2 Tanvi Reddy & Ria Vazir William Walker & Fletcher Lauber Neg
Medina Valley TFA IQT HS 2020-10-24 CX R1 Ethan Coffin & Leon Petriu Jackson Delhagen & Rex Kidd Aff
All Saints Episcopal School HS 2020-10-12 VCX R2 Princeton Arroyo & Diaz Union Grove ISD Caviness & Prince Aff
All Saints Episcopal School HS 2020-10-12 VCX R1 Argyle Langford & Harper Princeton Arroyo & Diaz Neg
North Lamar Wylie vIQT NIETOC HS 2020-09-23 VCX Semifi Mount Pleasant Hubbs & Sharp Lovejoy Zanzuri & Verma Neg Neg 3-0
North Lamar Wylie vIQT NIETOC HS 2020-09-23 VCX R2 Wylie Sturgeon & Adalumo Chapel Hill Zaragoza & Sekulic Neg
Lindale Fall TFA HS 2020-09-16 NCX Semifi St Mark's School of Texas Andrew Jin & Samuel Posten Westwood Ayush Tripathi & Vaishnuv Thiagarajan Neg Neg 3-0
Lindale Fall TFA HS 2020-09-16 VCX R3 Union Grove Analeice Jones & Emily Melton L C Anderson Charlotte Gossett & Walker Gossett Neg
Lindale Fall TFA HS 2020-09-16 VCX R2 Lovejoy Tajvir Singh & Andrew Mao Argyle Tristan Ball & Joseph Thompson Aff
Lindale Fall TFA HS 2020-09-16 VCX R1 Abilene Wylie Josh Mehaffey & Kade Killion Coppell Alexis Sibanda & Keerthi Chalamalasetty Aff
Princeton TFA HS 2020-09-11 CX R3 China Spring Pulcine & Lin Hallsville Hardie & Underwood Aff
Princeton TFA HS 2020-09-11 CX R2 Wylie McMain & Sturgeon Hallsville Stansbery & Thompson Aff
Princeton TFA HS 2020-09-11 CX R1 Wylie Nguyen & Wondwossen Hallsville McFarland & Wade Aff
Southlake Carroll Dragon Faire HS 2020-09-04 CX R2 Atlanta Jones & Porterfield Colleyville Heritage Chatur & Zhu Neg
The Democratize LD Invitational HS 2020-08-07 VLD R6 Perry JA CarInd CC Aff
The Democratize LD Invitational HS 2020-08-07 VLD R4 CarInd CC Harris GC Neg
The Democratize LD Invitational HS 2020-08-07 VLD R3 Harris GC EZ4ME JS Aff
The Democratize LD Invitational HS 2020-08-07 VLD R2 EZ4ME JS Whitme OW Aff
The Democratize LD Invitational HS 2020-08-07 VLD R1 Whitme OW Harris AC Neg
NYCUDL Summer Institute Tournament 2020-07-16 PFMed R1 RUBY Cervantes-Flores & Mao TURQUOISE Rosa & Chavez Pro