Tabroom.com

DUDA HS Tournament 1

2018 — Dallas, TX/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Gustavo Alonzo DUDA Volunteer

Alex Baez Hire 8 rounds

Robin Billings Thomas Jefferson HS None

Mason Blaylock DUDA Volunteer None

Brenton Browne DUDA Volunteer None

Ashley Campion W.T. White None

Sean Cohn Thomas Jefferson HS

Melyssah Colerangle Moises E Molina/ Molina Debate Team 8 rounds None

Alfonso Correa Talented and Gifted Magnet HS

Krutin Devesh DUDA Volunteer

Jamille Fields Hire None

Renee Gadson DUDA Volunteer None

Evan Gilbert Hire 8 rounds

Javier Gonzalez DUDA Volunteer

Caroline Greenstone DUDA Volunteer None

Valerie Gutierrez Irma Rangel YWLS

Last changed on Thu May 2, 2024 at 12:01 PM CDT

Please add me to the email chain: gutierrv@southwestern.edu. I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

TLDR: Argue for what you’re most comfortable with (if you’re a theory/T debater see below), I’m good with speed, slow down on advocacy texts, implicate a framework. Compare frameworks. Do weighing. Implicate the link chain to solvency/ impacts. I time. Please don’t prep while the docs are being sent or before the time has started. Be kind and have fun.

I will evaluate any argument in the round- take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, rather than this limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

About me:

Hey I’m Val (she/her). I’m in my last year at southwestern studying political science, latin american and border studies and spanish. Meaning, I love policy and philosophy.

As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments. I initially started as a UDL policy debater and later as an LDer and was taught most of what I know by Kris Wright. While I acknowledge that debate is sometimes cutthroat, I know that it is one of the kindest communities out there, and I ask that you are kind and respectful.

General notes:

Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probs won't know what you mean.

I’m very persuaded by a quick overview or a story of the link chain, especially as someone who judges intermittently.
Simply saying they dropped something without implicating the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw. Explain your warrants rather than simply extending tags and referencing authors.
Congress- Recently judged congress for the first time - It'd be helpful if you add your initials to zoom or say name before each speech.
World schools- I'm not as familiar with judging world schools, but I can definitely flow and understand framework, contentions and weighing. Before starting a speech, please state your name so it's easier for me to score.
Big Questions Debate- I find that it is similar to LD but with different speech times. I'm new to the format but comfortable appropriately judging.

Not so short version

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates, I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round, it's a NIB- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

LARP- f you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.

Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact. Don’t let that link story get lost, it can ultimately cost a round.

Please slow down on advocacy texts.

Criticisms - K debates are fun when articulated correctly. Like everything you run in debate, but especially important for Ks, know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me (If you run a k, know your authors.) Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - I love when debaters do what they most enjoy, so a good performance can get you far. The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, so please explain how that functions under a rob/fw. Side note: if you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory - ngl, if you read 20 disads to a counterinterp in 30 seconds, I'll probably suck at flowing it, because I find that it is usually really unclear. I'd prefer quality here, so if you tend to dump in theory debates, know it won't get you far. Bottom line, slow down a little here.

Topicality - I’m more comfortable with T than theory, but also slow down. If T is messy, I'll default to reasonability.

Spikes - Same feeling as theory debates apply here. Debates with spikes often get messy, and are slightly beyond what I'm comfortable judging.

*Disclaimer:* If you're religiously into theory/t/trix/spikes, strike me if you're able to. If you’re not, slow down and choose quality over quantity*

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing

Speech time - I'll time, please stop as soon as the timer goes off. To preserve fairness, please do not finish your sentence or continue after your given time.
Flex prep - It's okay with me if your opponent wants to answer your questions. They don't have to, and I won't make them.
Prep time/marked cards - I'll time prep. Also, the most it should take to hit send on the email chain is 10 seconds. If there's a problem with you sending the doc, I'll start your prep.

If you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

Tom Hammonds Kimball High School 8 rounds None

Jackson Hansen Woodrow Wilson HS (Dallas) 8 rounds

Matt Hutnyan DUDA Volunteer None

Cameron Kettles DUDA Volunteer

Karla Lainez W.T. White 8 rounds None

Martin Lazo DUDA Volunteer None

Derek Liles JBS Law Magnet

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:22 PM UTC

Hi! I'm Derek Liles, the Executive Director of Dallas Urban Debate. I look forward to judging you.

Things I used to be: Debate Coach at Law Magnet (2016-19), Director of Programs at Dallas Urban Debate (2012-2016), Debater at UTSA (2007-2012), Debater at Dallas Jesuit (2003-2007).

Please add me to the email chain: dzliles@gmail.com.

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

Reactive, mostly grouchy updates for Spring 2018:

1) Clash: Paperless prep is great, but...I feel like in-round clash and judge adaptation is subpar these days. Learn. To. Flow. On that note, you are under no obligation to send analytic arguments when I am judging.

2) Prep time: I think that any time that is not speech time is prep time (barring things like the time it takes your speech to travel through magic tubes and arrive in the other teams' computer). However, I can't be bothered to enforce a prep policy except in the worst cases, so I'll stick to using speaker points to incentivize best practice. Bonus points to people who run a tight ship when it comes to prep time use. Minus points for those who dilly dally. Generally speaking, prep stealing occurs when you use time from some cosmic bank of prep time beyond your allotted 8 minutes. Specific scenarios that irk me: (a) "pre cx" where you ask what evidence was read - that's CX time (b) adding ev mid speech and sending it without taking prep (c) organizing flows/blocks after prep has ceased...more may be added later.

3) Stop asking me if I disclose speaker points. More than half of you don't even disclose your 1NCs. I will subtract speaker points if you ask me and my ballot hasn't already been submitted.

4) Stop throwing all of your arguments at the wall and hoping I work it out for you. Thoughtfully select a strategic end game and present me with a definitive victory path - don't leave it up to me to find it amongst the weeds. Scott Deatherage, late director of Northwestern Debate, says it best:

"CHOOSE. Choose...The first most essential lesson of effective rebutting is choice making. No matter the speech; be it the 1NR or the 2AR or any point in between...Young debaters, so anxious, every argument they think to be important, especially in rebuttals...instead it is the best arguments and the strongest points that make the effective rebutalist the winning champion in the debate...You...must in the end decide on an effective strategy for the judge. Choose for them what is the best avenue to prove conclusively that the coherent set or complete package of arguments you present as a totality in the last speech constitutes a way, a road, an avenue by which they achieve the effective end of concluding for the [aff/neg]."

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

General info about me and my feelings about debate:

Some overarching ideas will shape my answer to just about any question you could have about my predispositions: I've been around debate a long time and have judged/coached/debated from just about every angle. I debated at the national level in college (elims at CEDA/NDT). I have a background in policy argument from high school, but shifted very aggressively towards kritikal literature in college...that is to say, I'm receptive and fairly knowledgeable about most approaches to the topic at hand.

I think debate is best when teams effectively clash with each other, so I like when teams prioritize depth over breadth in their strategies and take time to flow/directly engage each others' ideas. I think preparation makes for good debate, so I default to the belief that teams should engage in some form of disclosure (it helped me prep at my small college team, I'm biased). I believe the value of debate comes mostly from the form of analysis it teaches you to make - less so the content of what you are advocating (barring some extreme circumstances). Make your argument as best you can and I will be happy to judge you. I'm not here to tell you what arguments to read.

I tend to be unmotivated to vote on theory - debate should be hard and focused on substantive issues. It's easy to convince me to reject the argument, not the team - so in front of me, you will be better off using theory to close doors on key components of your opponents' strategies. If you plan to go for theory, develop your objection early, rather than starting with a 10 second blip. Theory seems like even more of a cheap shot when it becomes a serious issue only in the last speech.

Bad arguments: Some arguments - impact turns that have "jumped the shark," ASPEC, contrived scenarios, etc. - are just bad (at least I think so). I feel like we all know when it's a bad argument, and if you don't, my reactions will probably make it clear how I feel. I'm likely to intervene or allow a lot of flexibility for your opponents to add arguments in rebuttals against them. "It's not new if it's true!"

Speaker points: I generally range between 28-29.5. Some things (not described in update section) that affect my calculus:

Act like you want to be here - after judging several rounds, nothing is more refreshing than watching someone who is passionate, engaged, friendly, etc. I also appreciate humor, and unlike some people, respect the beauty of punny wordplay.
I think debate is a communication activity - lack of clarity in terms of speaking style or strategic endpoint will impact your speaker points and my ability to give your argument the consideration it's due. Concerning speed, start at 80% so I can warm up to your voice and ease into full tilt over 30 seconds.
I prefer strategic depth over breadth. See rant at top - but in more detail: if starting with several sheets of paper, I'd prefer you resolutely condense the debate to a handful of core issues by the end. Less moving parts = less for me to resolve after the round = less likely I'll have to resolve it for you = more likely you control my perception of what happened in the debate. This also means you need to actively close doors in the last speeches, and I reward debaters who find unique ways to cross-apply concessions to their advantage.
AFF side bias/musings of a slighted 2N - I think 2ARs get away with murder when it comes to resuscitating advantages that were completely absent or barely in the 2AC & 1AR. I will have no hesitation to entirely dismiss or assign overwhelmingly low risk to advantages that re-appear/weren't fully developed until the 2AR.
I am very open to the idea that there is zero risk of an argument/averse to the ".01% risk of extinction = extinction" form of impact calculus - sometimes, it only takes a smart analytic/CX question about an internal link to get me to reject a preposterous terminal impact. If I'm smirking while flowing, it means you're doing well and can probably expect me to back you up in the post-round.
Bad evidence - old man moment: there are so many terrible cards in debate. Speaker points to anyone who publicly shames bad ev & the people that read it.

Small soapbox moment: I try to be attentive to the ways in which normative structures of gender, sexuality, race (and so on) affect student participation in this activity. Debate should be fun, respectful and accessible. Our activity shouldn't lose voices out of a stubborn commitment to remaining aloof of these dynamics, so don't participate in those systems in round and we're good.

I look forward to judging you!
Questions? Email me: dzliles@gmail.com

Sophia Lopez DUDA Volunteer None

Joanna Marquez Irma Rangel YWLS None

Angela McCarty DUDA Volunteer None

Angela McCarty DUDA Volunteer 8 rounds None

max mccarty Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 2:43 PM EDT

Max McCarty

I debated for a year in college at UTD for a Year, Coached at LFS for 3 years and now at Blue valley North. In HS I debated at BVSW and consitantly cleared at TOC tournaments my senior year.

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Tech > Truth

I have a lot less topic experience/knowledge than I have had on previous topics. I will definitely need more explaining of things than people who worked at or taught at camps over the summer. This will still be true throughout the season as I spend less time thinking about the topic than in previous years. Simply because I am less involved.
Over the last couple years of judging I have noticed a trend of people flying through analytics at top speed off the speech doc, if you want me to flow them it is in your best interest to slow down here. If you are doing this and not realizing it my body language will definitely tell you I am not flowing.
I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.
not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. I’m not well read in lit at all so explanation goes a long way. I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

Christian Mendoza Talented and Gifted Magnet HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 6:45 AM CDT

Email: christianmendoza4975@gmail.com

I debate for the University of Pittsburgh; third year of college debate.

Please add me to the email chain, before the round would be nice. Email me if you have questions before or after the debate.

Online debate:

If you have a technical issue, just pause your timer and let everyone know.

Mics will cut out sometimes, if this becomes a problem, I will let you know and pause the speech.

Prefs:

Clarity over speed, but you can go fast, and I’ll keep up on the flow

I’m not incredibly familiar with this years topic so explain your acronyms and make your tags clear, also differentiate them from the cards because online debate can be hard to hear. I will read your cards and figure it out from there as long as you’re making honest arguments you can defend and explain.

I judge primarily by listening to what you say, which means cx matters, judge instruction tells me how to evaluating my decision and I’m not going to just look at your cards while you read them instead I will pay attention to what you’re telling me. Impact comparison makes it much easier to evaluate the debate but don’t sacrifice a good framework debate.

Argument stuff

I am not tech over truth. While you can win on technical aspects of the flow that doesn't mean I default to tech when you can make simple arguments with good evidence.

I am partial to the affirmative in framework debates, however, I will vote on the most persuasive team which means you have to answer questions for me which include what your model of debate looks like or your critique of the resolution/debate etc.

Fairness is an IL to Education, not an Impact in itself. If your impact is fairness, you need to explain what debate is and not rely on a premeditated idea of debate. I like when teams write my ballot in the 2nr and 2ar.

The best way to win a round is to narrate what happened in the debate and sit on a couple of arguments rather than try and go for too much without a clear line of thinking.

I tend to protect the 2nr, so try not to lie too aggressively in the 2ar and sit on your biggest pieces of offense that were won.

Dropped arguments should be extended but will not get you an auto win by any means unless you use them for a different part of the debate. I would much rather vote on a team that made the best arguments and consistently kept it clean on the flow then a team that relies on debate tech to get out of tough spots on the flow. Make it make sense.

Speaks:

Finally, debate rounds are fun and can be very educational. Try and keep the debate interesting because it really does take 2 hours.

Do not harm others with your language because debate is a real activity.

Alyssa Mervine Hire 8 rounds None

Brian Miranda DUDA Volunteer None

Cody Moore James Madison HS 8 rounds None

Ruben Olivares DUDA Volunteer None

Kari Osborn Talented and Gifted Magnet HS 8 rounds None

Michelle D Read Bryan Adams 8 rounds None

Sakennia Reed Barak Obama Male Leadership 8 rounds None

James Renfroe Hire

Joseph Reyes Woodrow Wilson HS (Dallas) 8 rounds None

Steven Reyna Garza ECHS 8 rounds None

Gabriel Sanchez Hire 8 rounds

Jose Sanchez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 30, 2020 at 10:50 AM CDT

I consider myself a tab judge (but lets be real tho, it's 95% based on offense/defense).

Preface: I am still adjusting to online judging/debating, so I encourage you ask questions, more than anything. Also, my email is JoseSanchezCerrillo@gmail.com if you have questions or creating an email chain.

I debated policy for 4 years on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits and I have been debating for UNT for 3 years now. I have experience with a variety of arguments, but don't assume I know what you're talking about.

Generally, I am fine with most arguments - unless it's something explicitly violent/exclusive whether it be racist, homophobic, etc. Nonetheless, your "round-winning" argument needs a voter. Why is the argument (DA, theory, advantages etc.) you have presented a reason why I should vote aff/neg at the end of the round.

I am also not a fan of speed when used to exclude your opponent, and thus am lenient - though still need to be persuaded - towards some 'speed bad' arguments. In other words, every debater should be on the same page; it is a problem when, for an intentional reason, they are not. Personally, I do not have a problem with speed so long as it is clear and articulate.

K v FW - I am most familiar and prefer arguments based in critical race theory and performance. I find these debates tend to be more educational and engaging. However, that is not to say I can't be swayed by policy-focused arguments (refer back to offense/defense). On FW v K debates, like with T, are almost always based off the "standard" debate. Explain to me what are the benefits of your discourse and/or performance and why it should be preferred.

T/Theory - I defer to competing interps esp if no other framing is presented. I find that a lot of these debates are muddled at the top-level. Just like winning other T/Theory args, you need to convince me that your model/definition of debate is best - this should be your standards debate.

K - I'm not as knowledgable on the white boy goo that is Baudrillard, DnG, Agamben, etc. but will definitely vote on them if you convince me otherwise. Also, make sure to contextualize the critique to the affirmative. The difference between a good v. bad K debate is that the latter lacks contrast to the affirmative. Tell me why the alternative produces a preferable option to the world of the affirmative.

I'm fine with CPs and allat, you need to have a net benefit and mutual exclusivity. DAs, case turns, etc. - any offense - can win rounds, but, just as with other arguments, make sure to impact them out as to why they win you the round (like some impact weighing/framing).

Rafael Sanchez Hire 8 rounds

Mink sandhu Hire 8 rounds

Ashley Shan DUDA Volunteer 8 rounds None

Shruthi Siva DUDA Volunteer

Jerquila Slaughter Gilliam Collegiate Academy 8 rounds None

Aimee Stachowiak DUDA Volunteer

Last changed on Fri August 26, 2022 at 1:14 PM CDT

✨Hey hey hey! ✨

My name is Aimee Stachowiak, and I am currently attending the University of Chicago (with my older sister Nicole if you are a veteran world schools debater). I debated for Greenhill in World Schools Debate my entire high school career. Notably, my teammates and I have won NSDA, NDCA twice, TFA state, Harvard Westlake, Blake twice, as well as multiple other tournaments.

✨Things I will consider ✨

In debate, both teams are going to have arguments that they are going to almost certainly win. The point of the debate then is to tell me why your argument is so important and impactful that it will win you the round. Explain why your argument is better than your opponents best argument.

Make sure your arguments have diverse links and that those links make sense. The more links you have, the stronger your argument is meaning it will be harder to take down. Do not make jumps in your argumentation, or assume that I will understand the implicit link.

Give me realistic impacts. Tell me why I should care about the argument you just presented, why this argument is so critical it can be the reason I vote for you.

Point out contradictions, give me multiple reasons why an argument doesn't stand, attack the warrant, attack the impact, turn the argument against your opponents, take your opponents at their highest ground -- all of these things make the debate more interesting.

There is a difference between extending an argument and repeating an argument. When you take an argument down the bench, develop it by illustrating the impact to me, start to weigh it against other arguments, etc.

Please do your research. This can help you find interesting new subs, good statistics, and more. Stay up to date with the news -- impromptu motions can be based around current topics of discussion. However, don't just quote examples. Explain the incentives of actors, why this example applies to your argument, what this example proves, etc.

Please ask and take pois -- I was guilty of not asking that many but honestly it is fun and what makes the debate so engaging.

At the end of the debate, narrow it down to the 1-2 most crucial points. I essentially want your reply to be the RFD I would give at the end of the round. A lot of weighing should be in this speech. Tell me why you are winning. I cannot vote for you just because you say your opponents are worse.

Finally, please be considerate and courteous to your teammates, opponents, and any spectators.

✨Thank you! Good luck! ✨

Clay Stewart DUDA Volunteer 8 rounds None

afia umber DUDA Volunteer 8 rounds None

Michael Vera Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 16, 2017 at 7:57 AM EDT

Law Magnet ’16
The University of Texas at Dallas ’20

General:
Don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your argument anyways. I evaluate all arguments. I think like most judges I like to believe that I evaluate debate from an unbiased position.

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are fun.

Topicality: I enjoy good T debates. Unfortunately, T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a fundamental part of debate. Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks/ K AFFs: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I refuse to do that work for you regardless of my previous knowledge. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so. However, I will vote on framework if the aff/neg wins it produces a better model for debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard. I am unlikely however to vote on cheap shot theory arguments \ were little to no warrants are presented example “condo-vote strat skew and education”.

Things that are good and you should probably have/do
Impact Comparison
If...then statements
Confidence
Flagging important issues in debate
Jokes
Respect
Good/Strong CX questions and answers

Things I kinda believe
Tech over Truth
Smart Analytics can beat evidence
Uniqueness probably decides the direction of the link
Uniqueness can overwhelm the link
New 1AR arguments are probably inevitable and good to some extent
Prep time stops once you save the speech to your flashdrive

Karina Verdin DUDA Volunteer None

Solomon T. Watson Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 12:03 PM EDT

Email chain - solomonsonofwat@gmail.com

Whats good.

To treat people as people is my governing maxim, for debate it is to treat arguments as arguments. This activity lacks any coherence without a judge who adheres to such a universal. The energy generated in this activity relies on the thesis that everyone's argument will be heard, recognized, and reason will be in the decision.

Reason is the product of a unity between the particular argument and the universal debate, reason as the substantive new achieved only at the moment of synthesis of the particular and the universal. Biases are not only inevitable but to some degree necessary, to the degree any objectivity can be achieved it is through recognition of the self’s position in the universe.

I competed at grady (now midtown) high school as an ambassdor from the atlanta udl, later coaching for the atlanta ambassdors (grady, decatur, roswell, etc) from 2018-2020. In 2022, I graduated with a political science degree from utd, after competing there for 4 ½ years. And continued briefly coaching at utd before enrolling in the philosophy, politics, and economics masters program at the university of groningen.

While there is likely a good number in this judging pool with more experience/success in both debate and education, my experience can still make my ear somewhat demanding in certain conversations. As a competitor I approached debate as a game of exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, with the round itself a puzzle to be solved. This approach led to my participation (as both competitor and judge) in high level policy, K v K, and clash debates. My background has made me both familiar with a wide number of literature bases and argument genres, consequently I'm agnostic to both style and content. All I’m looking for are arguments.

When it comes to an argument, I’m looking for a claim with a warrant that’s has an implication for the round/debate at large. A conceded claim with a warrant is not a conceded argument, because it may lack an explicit explanation about the claim’s implication for the round. My commitment to treat arguments as arguments leads me to focus on reading arguments as they are presented and not if they are true. This commitment also leaves me in total deference to the arguments made by students about what the round is about, what the role of the judge or students are, and changes to the traditional calculation or weight of certain arguments.

Debates about the metaethics of the activity or the community are welcomed, in so far as you can articulate a reason why these ethical considerations are of more significance than the procedural concerns that come with alterations to the status quo of the activity. Deference to procedure for the sake of procedure is not always a sufficient defense of the procedure in question. Debates about the metaethics of debates are often most aided by comparing the benefits or harms of proposed models of debate rather than technical conversations that may proliferate the flow.

As the judge I do not allow, merely adjudicate. If you want to do something, make the argument for why you should do it. 2nc cps? Word PICs? Floating PICs? Make the argument and argue it, as the judge I will adjudicate who won. The door to creativity will be left open. Creation of arguments is the self-expression of debaters; self-expression is the life blood of self-aware creatures. Creativity can only exist with limitations, precisely as something for creativity to overcome. The precise boundaries of the limits of the round are for the competitors to argue.

Adjudication is a process of reading arguments through a combination of their technical presentation, offense defense framing, evidentiary/warranted support, and implication for the round. I flow on my computer and will passively read evidence throughout the round. Therefore, I tend not to need card docks after rounds, even in policy debates. That being said, if specific attention is made to a piece of evidence or the debate otherwise hinges on a piece(s) of evidence I will return to it.

My commitment to non-interventionism spills over to my conduct, I tend to say and interact as little as possible during the round. The debate is for the debaters to define, I’m merely an observer. My ballots tend to be littered with misspellings and grammatical incorrections. Generally, I use the ballot as a space for me to cohere my thoughts into a comprehensible rfd, from which I essentially use as a script for my oral feedback. If post facto questions exist about a ballot I encourage reaching out by email for clarity.

To treat people as people is very important to me, any actions on the part of competitors during the round that would negate this maxim will be rewarded with speaker point deductions or a loss depending on the severity. Moves that deny the personhood of participants based on otherization, class, race, gender, ability, religion, migrant status, etc are clear violations, be they epistemic, discursive, or interpersonal. Essentially, don't be an ass.

Patricia Wilson DUDA Volunteer None

Kris Wright Irma Rangel YWLS

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Login to Tabroom

DUDA HS Tournament 1

2018 — Dallas, TX/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges