Patrick Fox Paradigm

Last changed 16 April 2021 7:41 AM EDT

Last Updated - pre-TOC '21

Good job surviving eDebate. This has been an incredibly hard season for us all as both competitors and people. Be proud of yourself, because I'm genuinely proud of all of you.

You'd think I wouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do: if opponents make reasonable requests for accommodations regarding personal trauma, disabilities, identities, etc before the round starts and you do not meet those accommodations, I absolutely can and will vote against you on principle. The same goes for doing things in the round that actively makes debate as a space unsafe for people. You cannot change this stance and I will lose zero sleep over it.

This is at the top because I know it's why you're here - the tier list for framework 2NR tricks/impacts is:

S: “Clash turns and outweighs the case because persuasion and complex thinking/research skills”

A: “Procedural fairness means no incentive to research the aff or play the game” (not my personal 2NR but I'll happily hear this done well if its your thing)

B: Skills/topic ed, I guess

C: Literally anything else, shouting random buzzwords about third/fourth level testing without explanation of the impact

FF: “Fairness means you can't evaluate the aff because it hasn't been tested yet,” “small schools” (I will almost certainly not vote on the latter and will loathe you for making me vote on the former)

"Trill recognize trill shalt be the whole of the law." - me

VERY IMPORTANT: Before the debate, both teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks.

Topic thoughts

Because everyone seems to have one of these sections these days - will update as time goes on.

Policy 2020-21 - CJR - This topic sucks. Please, god, can we have some innovation from my K team buddies? Getting tired of Coppell DR knockoffs. My usual "topic ed is the worst framework impact" stance is still in effect, but it is far better on this topic than others. Topicality questions I don't have many hardline stances on, mainly because nothing in this topic is a real term of art which sucks, but abolition affs are probably T.

LD JF21 - LAWs - Good research and good mastery of that research will be rewarded with a bump in speaks, because this is legitimately the best topic LD has had in years for good debates grounded in robust literature (even though the division of ground fucking sucks). Love arms control debates. (Still) questioning whether or not single state affs are T, mainly because to me "bans" in arms control usually means international laws/externally imposed - did South Africa "ban" itself from having a nuke? Haven't entirely made up my mind, mostly just think those affs are cheaty/too good. Phil stuff seems wacky good on this topic.

"Who is this guy?"

Jack C Hays '19

UH Debate '23

He/him/his

Policy: westsidedb8[at]gmail[dot]com

LD: pdfox0513[at]gmail[dot]com

Conflicts 2020-21 -

I am a consultant for Westside High School's policy team, mainly working with Westside SK and Westside RY.

In addition, I currently coach Trinity Valley KK, Coppell VS, Plano West DJ, Garland LY, Live Oak RS, Westlake AK, *inhale* Perry JA, Cooper City NR, Los Altos BF, and Cardinal Gibbons RS in LD.

I have previously coached Lovejoy KC, George Ranch NS, Lindale PP, Newsome DB (before he quit lol), Princeton TK (very briefly) and Memorial DX.

I have a personal friendship with Plano East NG, so I conflict him too.

I graduated from Jack C Hays HS in 2019.

Don't call me "judge" or any other honorific please. Patrick is fine. Fox is fine if you don't wanna call me Patrick.

"What does he think debate is?"

Debate is a competitive activity centered around research, argumentation, and persuasion. I am an educator who's job it is to adjudicate the competitive aspect of the activity and enable growth and progression of the students in all the others. There are two teams (or two debaters), and they are the only people taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on the arguments made by the debaters, with regards to both what the arguments they make are as well as how they tell me to evaluate them within the constraints of my ability to do so and meeting the threshold for a complete argument. The debate will take place within the constraints of the tournament set speech and prep times, and at the end I will submit a decision with one winner and loser. If you try and tell me that anything outside of this set of statements is "binding" on my "jurisdiction" as a judge, you are simply blatantly incorrect and I will deeply resent you trying to tell me how to do my job.

"So how should I pref him?"

While its kind of a cop-out, the most honest answer is "it depends." That being said, overall I tend to be mostly tech over truth, in that my threshold for a complete/coherent argument is very rigid (and probably higher than the current LD meta, lol), but if what you say meets it, go off. Robust explanation of good arguments and explicit comparison is a safer bet with me than blippy nonsense that relies on stuff going unanswered.

I'm very expressive. Read my non-verbals.

"Okay well, should I pref him..."

"...if I'm a policy kid?"

Yeah, sure. I'm a journalist external to debate, so I genuinely enjoy dense, technical research and value good evidence highly, but none of that matters if you can't do the work to explain it. I will most likely read key cards after the round (although it's ideally because I'm just confirming the 2N/AR's explanation of evidence, not just to figure out what it said for myself).

- My ideal policy 1AC is two well constructed advantages with robust internal link evidence to 3-4 different impact scenarios. Fewer big impacts with better internal links > shotgunned extinction scenarios with 5 second cards. I expect case debate as I expect the sun to rise - 0% risk probably isn't a thing but I still think that if there's negligible risk of the aff vs the DA I'm inclined to just not vote for you. Good impact turns are underutilized, as debaters are cowards. Courage will be rewarded.

- My ideal 2AC/1AR/2AR to the K gives concise, technical arguments and contextualizes offense to the aff's internal links - you may not know the K better than the 2N, but you should definitely know your aff; use it. Some evidence is probably essential, but moderate cards + aff explanation and spin > The Dump (TM). Impact framing/comparison is often lost - the 2AR solely on Framework + case o/w + link defense is not only welcome, but appreciated.

- My ideal 2NR on a DA articulates a clear warrant for turns case as well as an external impact, and does a lot of work on comparative risk. Politics is fine and dandy, but the Rider DA is a godless abomination. Uniqueness > link, because nothing else makes sense. Not much to say here. Do it.

- CPs are very cool and well-researched process CPs in particular are literally my favorite args (which means ConCon and consult don't count, lol). Default to sufficiency framing because why wouldn't I? Condo and negation theory are good and probably infinite (LD: its still good but less infinite, after like 4 condo I become more sympathetic), but I think judge kick is godless and will very much try not to kick the CP for you (basically unless the 2AR straight drops judge kick, don't count on it).

"...if I'm a K person?"

Absolutely. These are the debates I think about the most these days, and I do a lot of reading and research in this area both inside and outside of debate. Outside of debate, I'm a disabled Marxist. I say this not to discourage you from reading non-disability/Marxist/etc positions, but to let you know this is where I come from - I've researched and coached more or less every K in this activity. Good K debaters are (imo), no matter what their background, organized and technical, with lots of contextual and specific explanations/examples.

- K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact - if I do not think this is the case by the end of the 2AR, I will err super heavily negative because, shockingly, affs should defend things. Presumption is underexploited by the negative, but most presumption args should be less about the ballot and more about solvency (or lack thereof). Explaining why debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Overviews are fine but as time goes on, returns diminish. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.

- Neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, overviews kept to a minumum, and most explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Framework should be a model of debate, so "reps first" isn't really an argument. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff (whether the aff is a policy or a research object - tell me which!), and should be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Impact framing and comparison is often forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat. 2NRs that go for the PIK that don't robustly explain what the PIK actually looks like tend to lose to the perm, so explicitly re-contextualizing the alternative is probably in your interest - the one policy panel I've sat on was because of this.

- K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast in these debates, so examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates. Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem.

- Gonna be transparent - I haven't been in many performance debates. That being said, I like it, I coach this more and I'm actively working to think about it more. If this is your thing, don't be deterred from doing it, just be aware this isn't my background.

"...if I expect clash debates?"

Most definitely. I am very far from both "Framework is genocide" and "no plan no ballot" types, which makes me a pretty ideal mutual pref for these rounds imo. I think on a capital-T truth level I err slightly aff for reasonability reasons, but my actual voting record errs slightly neg - do with this what you will.

- Affs - I think some form of dialogue/role for negation is good and there should be a general telos and stasis for discussions - my ideal affirmative articulates a model of debate that has both but impact turns the negative's specific stasis point/telos i.e: not "debate is bad" but "their model of debate is bad, ours is better." There is a value to debate and I intuitively think it's important to be able to preserve and explain it, even if there's disagreement over what said value is.

- Negatives - TVAs and SSD don't need to solve the content of the aff, but debating them needs to solve the aff impact turns/offense (or at least most of it - I think of this stuff through sufficiency framing). 2NRs lose when they don't collapse and explain a terminal impact or comparative i/l work on limits/ground. They also lose when they don't mention the aff at all. They win by doing all of the above. Hanging out/working with Evan Alexis has made me more convinced fairness is an external impact, but it rarely gets explained enough to be one - "sure, debate is a competition, but why do I care?" is common in my RFDs. I like game theory research, and if you wanna get good at framework you should too.

- All of the above can be changed by good enough (or bad enough) debating. I've voted aff on impact turns to debate itself with no counterinterp (cringe), and voted neg on "topic debating is good because we all should be lawyers someday" (also cringe). To me, Framework (and good 2ACs to it) are about the process of debate over the course of a topic/season rather than the content of individual rounds/arguments. As such, "state good/bad" or even "topic good/bad" doesn't really make sense as a response to/argument for Framework.

"...if I'm a phil debater?"

Maybe. Not the most well versed in these debates (although I do coach them a lot more lately), and there are just better judges for these rounds you could pref, but I genuinely enjoy them and find them interesting, and I think I historically give pretty alright decisions in these rounds.

- Clear explanation and explicit interactions are good. I find these debates are simultaneously too blippy and also too top-heavy, and making sure you avoid both will help your chances a lot.

- I'm well versed in certain philosophies of ethics, but my issue is explaining how that translates to an impact metric in a debate round, so explain this stuff like I'm a well-read non-debater I guess?

- If you're going for phil affs vs the K, pref me a bit higher - I find these interactions interesting and actually do like these debates, provided they don't devolve into blippy nonsense and there's genuinely robust contestation.

"...if I'm a tricks machine?"

Please god no. I despise these debates and my threshold for these arguments is gonna be substantially higher. I will (begrudgingly) vote on them if a clear claim/warrant/impact is asserted and won (which is rare, but happens), but these debates are legitimately emotionally exhausting for me to judge because of how banal and infuriating I find them and I'm seriously gonna start tanking speaks moving forward for a prioris/TT/skep/logcon/etc. Also not voting on condo logic/tacit conditonals.

"...if I'm a theory debater?"

At your own risk. Lower for tons of spammy shells, higher for more policy-esque topicality debates, between the two for Nebel. I've been told my evaluation of these debates is erratic when interactions aren't very clear in very dense 2NRs, but I also did coach Aditya, so it's not like I know nothing. The wonkier the shell, the greater my threshold for winning it is.

- Topicality is a question of predictable models of the topic, which I believe is determined by research and literature. As such, I value evidence with intent to define terms of art more than good limits in the abstract. LDers: This doesn't mean semantics, it's actually the opposite - I care much more about topic literature consensus than grammar, because the latter has much less to do with how topics play out. You can go for semantics, but tread carefully. Offense/defense because why wouldn't I. Reasonability and competing interps could go either way in these debates, but reasonability is a question of the aff's interpretation, not what the aff did. Saying "the aff is/n't reasonably T" makes no sense to me, because it's about whether their model of debate is reasonable. Linguistic descriptivism > prescriptivism.

- Paragraph theory good, RVIs bad, disclosure good. These are predispositions I have (along with the condo stuff above) that are quite difficult (but not impossible) to debate out of.

- LDers: The universe is not infinitely expanding - nobody in theoretical physics has thought this was a thing since about the late 2000s - expansion is finite and constrained by the total amount of matter/energy that exists, so it'll eventually stop. This is where theories about the heat death of the universe comes from. Nick Bostrom is a moron and I'll never forgive him for popularizing this (and other) nonsense. Big pet peeve.

- LDers: Not voting on any sort of shell about clothes or people's behavior. It's worthless and annoying at best and violent at worst. Stop it.

- LDers: 2NRs on shells should focus less on lots of blips and more on sitting down and explaining internal links with explicit comparison. Treat it like a topicality 2NR in that regard and your chances of winning go way up, otherwise I may intervene to resolve unclear parts of the debate in ways you dislike.

- LDers: 1AR theory is fine, but again, impact out stuff very explicitly and don't leave it in my hands to decide.

- LDers: I'm evaluating every part of the debate after the 2AR. Trying to change this loses you 0.1 speaks for every speech you exclude.

"What about the weird pet peeves and thoughts every judge has but always forget to put in their paradigms?"

This will be updated over time, but...

Deeply uncomfortable voting on "this person did this thing and that's bad" unless I literally see it. I don't feel comfortable evaluating the conduct of minors who I don't know outside of these very limited interactions.

"Perm, do both" isn't an argument by itself and if this is all you say I will treat it as a new argument in your next speech when you explain it.

People who say "winning X means u auto-affirm/negate" annoy me because its never that simple or clean.

Inserting re-highlighting of opponent's cards? Fine and dandy. Inserting whole cards from different parts of the article? Gotta read it.

Not okay with cards about debate written by active debaters at the time of authorship. Non-negotiable. Won't flow them. Sorry.

My debaters have pointed out when people go for indexicals, if I decide under my index that these arguments aren't real and I don't need to flow them it's impossible to deny this. Will be thinking about this moving forward.

The best way to make me want to claw my eyes out is overly semantic debates over Role of the Ballot/Judge. I vote for who wins. These arguments are cop-outs for actual framing arguments 9/10 debates. No clue why people pretend these arguments are magically above any other framing argument in the debate because you used a cheeky four-word phrase.

Mich KM hasn't been funny for years (if they ever were) and I only recommend showing me your shitty Will Morgan impression if you want a 27. Glorify predators if you want, but don't expect me to vibe with it.

That being said, debaters who display the true Poster's Spirit will be rewarded handsomely.

If me and Ali Abdulla are on a panel together there's like a 90% chance we vote the same way.

Stealing prep time annoys the hell out of me. Don't.

Most of you don't understand Lacan well enough to go for it.

I will protect the 2NR like a mother protecting her firstborn.

Might give extra points for authors/args and cards I haven't seen before in K debates - I like rewarding original research over backfile recycling.

Long "framing contentions" alone are not good ways to answer DAs, but using them in conjunction with smart i/l defense is cool.

I decide most debates very fast. Like sub two minutes for a decision. Even in close rounds. Don't take it personally.

I enjoy small talk, actually.

"Wow, that was certainly, uh, thorough. Anything else?"

Debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, respect people's personhood, etc.

Debate should also be fun! Jokes, charisma, and being interesting to judge (even if it includes some pandering, lol) will all boost speaks.

Stolen from Yao-Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck." You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

Finally, a wager, as I am a gambling man at heart - if the 2AR/2NR sits down early, +0.3 speaks for every 30s saved if you win, but -0.3 speaks for every 30s if you lose. Your move.

Good luck, and see you in round!

- pat

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Tournament of Champions HS 2021-04-17 LD R1 Strake Jesuit BE Orange Lutheran AZ Aff
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD Octos L C Anderson BC Dulles AS Aff Aff 2-1
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD Dbls Dulles RZ Strake Jesuit DH Aff Aff 3-0
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD trip L C Anderson BC Woodlands AA Aff Aff 3-0
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD R6 Clear Brook SS Strake Jesuit VC Neg
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD R5 Woodlands AA Strake Jesuit AA Aff
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD R4 L C Anderson BC Strake Jesuit KS Aff
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD R3 McNeil AR Strake Jesuit JS Neg
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD R2 Westlake FD Strake Jesuit DL Neg
TFA State HS 2021-03-10 LD R1 Strake Jesuit ZD William P. Clements KK Aff
Harvard Round Robin HS 2021-02-11 LDRR R5 AmeHer EM Northv SD Neg
Harvard Round Robin HS 2021-02-11 LDRR R4 Northv SD LakHig AM Aff Aff 2-0
Harvard Round Robin HS 2021-02-11 LDRR R1 Strake JG LegChr BP Neg Neg 2-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD MD Harker AR Harvard-Westlake AG Aff Neg 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD PB American Heritage Plantation EM Harker AR Neg Neg 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD RKR Dulles AS Harker AR Neg Neg 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD WAU St Michael Albertville CS Dulles TY Aff Aff 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD R5 St Michael Albertville CS Thomas Horace Rogers JW Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD R2 Vestavia Hills RB Mission San Jose SS Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2021-01-29 LD R1 Sam Barlow EL BASIS Silicon Valley Independent SK Neg
UIL 6A District 25 CX District HS 2021-01-20 CX Semi Round Rock KK Westwood MS Aff Aff 3-0
UIL 6A District 25 CX District HS 2021-01-20 CX R2 Round Rock KK Westwood LX Neg
UIL 6A District 25 CX District HS 2021-01-20 CX R1 Westwood MS Vandegrift PY Aff
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD Finals Sidwell SW Dulles AS Neg Neg 2-1
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD Semis Strake Jesuit DH Sidwell SW Neg Neg 2-1
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD Quarts Dulles AS William P. Clements CY Aff Aff 3-0
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD Octos Dulles RB Sidwell SW Neg Neg 3-0
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD Octos Strake Jesuit DH Memorial SC Neg Aff 2-1
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 NCX Octos Barsto LS Kickap RC Aff Aff 3-0
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD Double Strake Jesuit LW BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK Neg Neg 2-1
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD R5 William P. Clements AK Dulles AS Neg
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD R5 Woodlands AA Memorial BD Neg
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 Pol R4 Aubrey OM Elkins JL Neg
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 Pol R3 WinChu AD FoxCha RM Aff
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD R2 Memorial SC Princeton Independent DR Neg
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 LD R2 Strake Jesuit HZ Dulles NJ Neg
The Cougar Classic at the University of Houston HS 2021-01-14 Pol R1 Barsto BM Unionv PA Aff
Strake Jesuit LD Tournament HS 2020-12-18 VLD Double DTHS HV Bergen County Academies AK Aff Aff 2-1
Strake Jesuit LD Tournament HS 2020-12-18 VLD R4 Memorial BD Plano Independent JN Neg
Strake Jesuit LD Tournament HS 2020-12-18 VLD R3 Needham VF Dulles SZ Neg
Strake Jesuit LD Tournament HS 2020-12-18 VLD R2 William P. Clements MM American Heritage Broward EM Neg
Strake Jesuit LD Tournament HS 2020-12-18 VLD R1 Marcus JR Independence AK Aff
The Longhorn Classic Online HS 2020-12-04 NCX Quarte Hebron Saeed & Nguyen Casady Gulati & Janknecht Neg Neg 2-1
The Longhorn Classic Online HS 2020-12-04 CCX R6 Kinkaid Fowler & Zhang Shark Hopkins & Lara Neg
The Longhorn Classic Online HS 2020-12-04 CCX R5 Grace Noble & Patterson Casady Huang & Jiang Neg
The Longhorn Classic Online HS 2020-12-04 CCX R4 Reagan Kapur & Rios Kinkaid Fowler & Zhang Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD Octos Dowling Catholic JP Strake Jesuit ZD Neg Neg 3-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD Sextos Lexington AL Sage Hill MP Neg Neg 3-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD R7 Mission San Jose AA Vestavia Hills RB Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD R7 Archbishop Mitty AB North Mecklenburg PM Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD R6 Lake Highland Prep AV Marlborough JH Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD R6 Sage Hill MP Lexington AL Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-21 VLD R3 Mission San Jose SR Marlborough JS Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD Quarte Lexington VM Strake Jesuit BE Neg Neg 3-0
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD Octo Northview SD Strake Jesuit BE Aff Neg 2-1
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD Double Evergreen Valley SS Strake Jesuit JG Neg Neg 3-0
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD Triple Mission San Jose SR Dutchtown HV Neg Neg 2-1
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD R6 Harker AR Strake Jesuit JS Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD R5 McNeil AR Millard North NL Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD R4 Strake Jesuit BE Carnegie Vanguard SR Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD R2 Durham VW Strake Jesuit LWa Neg
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament HS 2020-11-06 VLD R1 Carmel Valley Independent MN Dowling Catholic JP Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2020-10-15 CX Octos Georgetown Day MW Northview AI Aff Neg 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2020-10-15 CX Sextos Georgetown Day BS Taipei American WB Neg Neg 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2020-10-15 CX R5 James Logan BM Stuyvesant QH Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2020-10-15 CX R4 Berkeley Prep ZK Strath Haven WY Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2020-10-15 CX R2 Baltimore City SW USN BH Neg
Nano Nagle Classic Formerly Voices HS 2020-10-05 LD Octos Harker AS Princeton Independent DR Aff Aff 3-0
Nano Nagle Classic Formerly Voices HS 2020-10-05 LD Triple Strake Jesuit DA Harker AR Neg Neg 3-0
Nano Nagle Classic Formerly Voices HS 2020-10-05 LD R3 Dulles RZ Harker AL Aff
Nano Nagle Classic Formerly Voices HS 2020-10-05 LD R3 Princeton Independent DR Harker AS Aff
Nano Nagle Classic Formerly Voices HS 2020-10-05 LD R2 Strake Jesuit VM Harker GS Aff
Nano Nagle Classic Formerly Voices HS 2020-10-05 LD R2 Oxford VD Harker MK Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 LD RR R6 Strake Jesuit BE Greenhill VG Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 CX R6 Bronx Science CM Nevada Union GW Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 CX R5 Edina LO Northview AI Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 LD RR R5 L C Anderson AR Harvard-Westlake MP Neg Neg 2-0
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 CX R4 American Heritage Plantation CR USN FK Neg
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 LD RR R1 Harker AM Harrison GC Aff
Greenhill Fall Classic HS 2020-09-17 CX R1 Berkeley Prep SS Edina AA Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2020-09-11 VLD R5 Stanford Online MB Pembroke Pines Charter JD Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2020-09-11 VLD R3 Coppell CD Torrey Pines JS Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2020-09-11 VLD R3 Hebron LC Carnegie Vanguard JQ Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2020-09-11 VLD R2 Cardinal Gibbons ZD BASIS San Antonio Shavano PKa Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2020-09-11 VLD R1 Saratoga AG Dulles AS Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2020-09-11 VLD R1 Flintridge Prep AL Lynbrook YM Neg
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD Trip Strake Jesuit VM Claremont GK Neg Neg 3-0
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD Trip Hopkins SS Bergen County Academies MS Neg Neg 3-0
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R6 Fremont Independent KG Lynbrook AGu Neg
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R5 Kennedy (Independent) KR Strake Jesuit ZD Neg
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R5 Carnegie Vanguard SR Presentation RD Aff
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R4 West Des Moines Valley RT Marlborough ER Aff
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R3 Dougherty Valley DC Aragon Independent ZA Aff
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R3 Quarry Lane MS Dulles TY Aff
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R2 Dutchtown HV Presentation NB Aff
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R1 Strake Jesuit DL Hopkins SS Aff
Loyola Invitational HS 2020-09-05 LD R1 Presentation MS Rancho Bernardo JJ Neg
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD Qtrs John Richard Fitzgerald AS Gridiron Chopper BS (GCBs) EZ Neg Neg 3-0
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD Octas Truth Testing Arabs JG TrixAreForKids BF Aff Aff 3-0
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD Octas Clutch Gene JS Hypixel Homies BZ Neg Neg 3-0
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD Dubs Maria Independent MS Clutch Gene JS Neg Neg 2-1
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD R4 TrixAreForKids JC Pyongyang Foreigners RB Aff
Gridiron Chopper Invitational 2020-04-24 LD R4 Chief keef love sosa RS Freehold Township Independent SA Aff
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD R3 John Richard Fitzgerald AS Hypixel Homies BZ Neg
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD R3 What PM Needh-ham Heights VF Neg
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD R2 Good Bois LW BoRRaine LarY ND Neg
Gridiron Chopper Invitational HS 2020-04-24 LD R1 Pyongyang Foreigners CS Hypixel Homies DA Aff
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD Triple New Trier TS Strake Jesuit WH Neg Neg 3-0
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD Triple Charlotte Catholic DE Chantilly Independent TM Aff Aff 3-0
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R6 Hunter KC Bergen County Academies EK Neg
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R5 Hunter DS American Heritage Plantation NR Neg
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R5 American Heritage Boca/Delray NT Lake Highland Prep AS Aff
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R4 Ft Lauderdale EP William G. Enloe KH Aff
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R2 Strake Jesuit AM Houston Memorial SC Aff
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R2 Edgemont RG Strake Jesuit DH Aff
46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament HS 2020-02-13 VLD R1 Strake Jesuit JX New Jersey Independent AN Aff
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 Pol R5 WestSide RL Hebron KP Neg
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 Pol R4 LibArt IJ Copp KA Aff
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 LD R3 Melissa RA Barbers Hill CW Aff
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 LD R3 Hebron LC Strake Jesuit AMe Neg
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 LD R2 Dulles TY Northland Christian ABr Neg
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 LD R1 Strake Jesuit AM Cypress Ranch MZ Aff
University of Houston Cougar Classic HS 2020-01-10 LD R1 Strake Jesuit WH Heights LC Aff
Strake Jesuit Tournament HS 2019-12-20 VLD LD6 Carnegie Vanguard JQ Awty International ZR Neg
Strake Jesuit Tournament HS 2019-12-20 VLD LD5 Legacy Christian BP Claudia Taylor Johnson AP Aff
Strake Jesuit Tournament HS 2019-12-20 VLD LD2 George Ranch NS Anderson AK Neg
Strake Jesuit Tournament HS 2019-12-20 VLD LD1 Heights GS Anderson BC Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD Octofi Houston Memorial SC Strake Jesuit AM Neg Neg 3-0
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R6 McNeil SC Legacy SW Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R6 Winston Churchill GC Episcopal School Of Dallas CB Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R5 Strake Jesuit AMe Houston Memorial AQ Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R4 Carnegie Vanguard AB Dulles NJ Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R4 Anderson AR Strake Jesuit DL Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R3 George Ranch NS Strake Jesuit ZD Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R3 Houston Memorial DX Strake Jesuit BE Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R2 Anderson BC Westlake FD Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R2 Plano West SW Heights LC Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R1 Strake Jesuit CR Coppell RR Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas HS 2019-12-06 LD R1 Strake Jesuit JS Harlingen South KN Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2019-10-18 LD R6 Loyola AP Fusion KS Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2019-10-18 LD R5 Strake Jesuit VC George Ranch NS Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2019-10-18 LD R5 Strake Jesuit JX Loyola LH Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2019-10-18 LD R4 Loyola JC Strake Jesuit CR Aff
Heart of Texas HS 2019-10-18 LD R4 Westside SH Strake Jesuit DL Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD Octos Westlake AL Carnegie Vanguard AB Neg Neg 2-1
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD Double Northland Christian ABr Strake Jesuit WH Neg Neg 3-0
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD Double Strake Jesuit AMe Dulles FS Aff Aff 3-0
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R5 Dulles AS Oak Grove NW Aff
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R4 Seven Lakes CG Prosper IP Aff
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R4 Jenks NC Houston Memorial SC Aff
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R3 Northland Christian AB Episcopal School Of Dallas FG Aff
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R3 Moore ES LC Anderson AR Aff
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R2 Winston Churchill JE KAPS BT Neg
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R2 Houston Memorial AQ Heights AV Aff
Grapevine Classic HS 2019-09-06 LD R1 Dulles FS Seven Lakes RR Neg