Red and Black Invitational
2016 — UT/US
Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideSpeed
-I'm not good with speed. If you want to spread, go ahead. I will drop my pen and stop flowing if you are incomprehensible to me.
Voters/Scoring Summary
-In the last couple minutes of your last speech I need a concise and simple explanation of why you won and on what key points/stock issues.
-If your opponent supplies this and you do not there is a high possibility that I will vote in thier favor, whether or not you thought it was justified.
Flashing and Flowing
-I want flashes of cases so that I can flow your cards and cases properly. Make sure what you flash me is what you are reading.
-If flashing becomes obnoxiously long I will take it out of your prep, other than that flashing isn't included in prep.
-Sign post. If you don't tell me where you are it's not going on my flow.
-I am a flow judge. That being said, I also do care about your spreading/speaking style and your conduct in round so keep that in mind.
Topicality
-Most of the time I won't vote on T. If, however, you make a convincing (and sensible) arguement as to how topicality is important and it's implications I may vote in your favor. Don't base your round on these arguements.
K's
-I don't understand most K's and don't think they are usually productive in the debate space. Don't run them.
Theory
-Theory has a place in round, but I have a high threashold for it. Make sure you give me the standards and implications; if you don't, I can't find it convincing.
Jargon
-If you start rambling on about the USFG and QPQ you will lose me. If you're going to use acronyms or jargon explain to me what they mean before you use them.
Value/Criterion in LD
-I prefer you to debate traditionally in LD with a value/criterion that links into your contentions and is strong enough to be a voter at the end of the round.
Pet Peeves
-Debaters that are abusive to (obviously) novice opponents for the sake of it. If you decide to act this way, it will be reflected in your speaker points.
-Talking down to me or being incomprehensible.
-Disorganization
I am an Assistant coach for Alta High School. My Mother is a debate teacher so I grew up with it in my life always and so understand it very well and love it a lot.
First, debaters should know that I debated in high school and understand rules and purposes for each debate and use these for my main source of determining the outcome of a debate. If you are debating LD then I look for a case that sways me morally, for Policy I look for cases that focuses on creating solutions through concrete plans etc. I am also a 'news junky' and try to stay up to date on many current events, with this I am familiar with most topics brought up in debate. That being said I remain very impartial coming into a debate round and look for you to sway me to your case.
Specifics in judging:
Speaker points: To obtain high speaker points its not just about speaking clearly and persuasively. I am all about confidence both in yourself and your case. I stand by the traditional style of debate where you are standing when presenting. A lot is said in body language when speaking and I like to analyze this in the debate as a way to see how confident you are in what you are presenting to me. Tips to help you with this is to know not only your case but the topic inside-out. This allows you to focus on presentation instead of reading. Do not run anything that you do not understand.
Cross-X: I will also draw a lot of speaker points from the cross examination. I judge Respect and Professionality throughout the entire round but this is the perfect ground to really see the depth of that when there is debater interaction. Make sure that questions are pertinent to either building your own case or clarification. Those who dont use all of the Cross-X time I have a problem with that.
K's: I find Kritiks fasinating as long as you keep it topical and like I said above know how to run it. Explain yourself well I am not a philosophy major but it you slow down and make it make sense I'll keep up with you.
Theory: I am a very traditional judge and want you to debate the topic. If you keep a theory topical and explain yourself go for it! If you come to a round to debate about debate not the topic it will hurt your score.
Speed: I can handle some speed but it has to be clear enough to where I can understand you. I will call out clear or slow down once maybe twice if I still can't understand you i put my pen down and stop judging. Just remember I can't judge on what I can't understand.
Final Speech: In your final speech I want specific voters on the main arguments. Debaters who can take an entire round and sum it up into a few surviving points on why their case stand out have my favor. Put the weight to it. I as a judge will not with the issue for you and having to do so will nock on your score.
Pet Peeves: Extensions. Do not extend your case if you have not sufficiently rebutted your opponent's arguments against your case I don't want to hear the word extend at all. Blatant rudeness will knock speaker point's like none other for me. This is supposed to be friendly and fun stuff. Topicality if your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will in your judging sheet. Debate the topic at hand not tangents.
Other FAQs: i don't care if you use computer or paper just make sure your opponent has access to your case. You can use your phone to time or whatever I will just make sure an internet is disconnected.
All in all be confident, be clear, and have fun!
For local tournaments
I think that if you are going to do progressive debate at a tournament where your opponent is more traditional it would be great for you to have some way they could read your case if you are spreading. I don't think it is constructive or education to not assist someone who is unfamiliar with terminology or specific types of cases.
Additionally, while it is probably my preference to judge more progressive arguments I would prefer to watch a good traditional debate than a mediocre progressive debate.
LD
This is the event I’m most familiar with. I competed in highschool and am good with most types of arguments. Honestly just do what you feel most comfortable with.
K arguments
I am comfortable judging k-affs, performance Ks and regular Ks.
I love a good K and am familiar with a lot of the literature. If it is something obscure I need you to explain the K (for my sake and the sake of your opponents.
CPs
go for it
Topicality
I need weighing against counter-interp. no RVIs plz
Theory
For both theory and topicality I need them to be justified. I don't think an excessive theory shell makes sense at all strategically nor do I believe that it is a good use of time.
Policy
Good with whatever, if you have any specific questions lmk. Please include me in the email chain.
Public Forum
I’m a flow judge, am good with speed and I’m really okay with whatever you want to run. Please, please, please use sign-posting and clear extensions. line-by-line is helpful for everybody in the room.
If you are going to claim an opponent is violating the rules, I need this to actually be the case. Particularly due to time constraints I really don’t want to watch a debate about the rules of debate if the argument of abuse is not grounded - it’s honestly a waste of your time, your opponent’s time and my time.
Random bits and pieces
1. I’m not going to be flowing cross-x, I view it as mainly for the benefit of debaters.
2. I don’t have any preference around sitting or standing, just do whatever is comfortable.
3. I have a weak immune system, please do not shake my hand.
email: claire.e.smith@me.com