Tabroom.com

Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational

2020 — Colleyville, TX/US

NCX Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alisea Chung Crossings Christian School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 1, 2023 at 9:42 AM CDT

Alisea Chung - CCS ‘22

aliseachungcx@gmail.com (put me on the chain)

@aliseachung

read whatever you want in front of me, i'm open to hearing everything you have to offer as long as it's explained pretty well. make the round easy for me to vote on. tell me why you win the round, why your opponent doesn't, etc. just give really good analysis on your args (especially critical arguments) and you should have a good time.

general things:

if you have stuff blocked out or a giant overview on the top of your k, I'd prefer that those be on the speech doc.
please please please slow down on tags or blocked out overview stuff, even if they're in the speech doc. I'd prefer to flow just by ear, but sometimes I have to glance over at the doc. with that being said, speed is definitely okay. (but even though it's a given, don't sacrifice clarity.). I will say "clear" twice before i stop flowing if your i don't have your docs.

please only send out one speech doc, not two. if there's a card being read that you read bc you had too much time then you can just send that separately but I'd prefer not to have two different docs with a bunch of cards in them that you know you're gonna read
please compare evidence that stuff is super convincing as a judge

topicality:

prove abuse. in round. topicality is rarely debate about precedents. potential abuse is probably not a voter
has a quality definition, on both sides. i want to be able to vote on reasonability but i’ll default to competing interpretations occasionally, that being said, that doesn’t mean anything if you don’t…
have good standards. again, im tech over truth, but have good standards as to why the aff should lose. this probably falls under “prove abuse.” and say t is a voter please

kritiks:

have a good link. there are times where the link needs to be specific to the aff, and there are times where they don’t need to be. either way, good links are dope.
have in depth explanation of the k. again, i think this is probably a given, but if at the end of the debate, i don’t know what the k does, i don’t have a reason to vote on them. and that’s on every aspect, the alt, the link, the 2nc floating pik, etc. i really don’t want the alt to be vague on purpose. your answer to “vague alts bad” should not be “that’s the point.”

disads:

for politics, recency is super important, but you’re going to have to prove why today is different than yesterday. if your link/uq is a day newer, but nothing has really changed in the political, then recency isn’t a key factor in evaluating those arguments
and I would much rather see a case-specific disad then a politics disad every. single. round.
I like really good impact calculus. zero risk is hard to prove, but disads still probably have very low risk nonetheless. you and i both know this.

counterplans:

The counterplan should be competitive
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.
I will judge kick, if you tell me to.
Make sure you clearly have a net benefit. Counterplans should be read in the 1NC with a solvency advocate. Don’t read new planks in the 2NC

Conclusion:

Have fun debating!!
Do not be rude to each other in round. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
No stealing prep
Make the speech doc organized

To Blaine, do better.

Hayden Iske Hire 6 rounds

Jason Joy Hebron High School 5 rounds

Matthew Kelly Crossings Christian School 5 rounds

Mark Lam Dallas Highland Park HS 3 rounds

Chris Martin Jesuit College Prep 1 rounds None

Eric Melin Coppell 9th 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 5:59 AM CDT

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

Ethan Muse Dallas Highland Park HS 3 rounds

Joshua Ramos Jesuit College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 12:03 PM CDT

Background

- Jesuit Dallas '21 - Debated Education, Immigration, Arms Sales, and Criminal Justice Reform (If this matters)

- A&M '25

- 2N/1A - 1 year (Freshman year)

- 2A/1N - 3 years

- Email for email chains and speech docs: joshram2021@gmail.com and jcpdebate@gmail.com (email my personal email for questions about past rounds/general questions; for questions, just give me a couple days to respond)

-- For GDI, just use my personal email

Top Level

- Line By Line matters, clash is key (I will auto number Case args and the 2AC block, if it isn't numbered)

- Please be nice

- My coaches have impacted my view of debate a lot (Tracy McFarland and Dan Lingel), along with my fellow Jesuit Class of 2021 and some alum

- All of these are just my initial views on certain things but obviously my mind can be changed based on who did the better debating

- Evidence comparison is great

- Read your re-highlightings in round unless it doesn't makes sense to do it

- Underviews and overviews that aren't used for judge instruction aren't useful for anyone

- CX is a useful reference to refer to in speeches, I'll try to pay attention

- Short Overviews --X------- Long Overviews

- Explanations X--------- Enthymemes

- Tech ----X----- Truth

- Don't steal ev and disclosure is good, re-highlighting or recutting a card is different than using a card from another team in a debate (I can help with giving access to pdfs/articles, especially if they're Jesuit cut). Also don't clip

- I will try to read the important ev after the round, especially if you flag it down

- Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions before and after the round

- PLEASE don't read any advocacy advocating for suicide, I will vote you down if you do end up advocating for suicide (There are explicit arguments for that phrase that the authors who use it have, USE THAT EXPLANATION, you are still open to criticisms of that advocacy to begin with). Regardless, I think there are better arguments instead of suicide advocacy.

- Feel free to ask if you need a clarification of my RFD, I sometimes ramble

FOR NOVICES - Novice year really pushed me to want to continue debate so make sure to have fun and ask questions, I'll do my best to explain the argument and what your answer could've been.

FOR ONLINE DEBATE - I'd ideally like everyone's camera to be on during the debate, or at least when you're giving a speech, but I understand if there's technical problems that mean it's not possible. PLEASE start slightly slower, I have good quality headphones now but like if your mic is peaking I'm just not gonna properly process what you're saying

Econ Topic Specific Thoughts/Ramblings

- Rounds Judged: 5

- T over what "financial redistribution" is seems important

- I'm a little new to learning about how some of the econ stuff works so I'm more likely to read the ev when it comes down to some of the nitty gritty tech stuff for it

T/Procedurals

- Majority of my 1NRs were either a DA or T

- Good T debates are really fun to watch and judge, clear up impacts and how your interp best accesses those

- I default to competing interpretations (Reasonability requires you to win some semblance of a we meet or your Counter interp resolving limits)

- Caselists are very very important

- Limits is important but limits for the sake of limits is bad

- Ev should be read in T debates (either interps or what their interp would justify; If you can read a solvency advocate for what their interp would include, that would be very impressive and gives Neg's game on the limits debate), call out interps that aren't related to the topic (PLEASE DON'T JUST CARD DUMP, especially if your interps contradict or aren't in the context of the res, cause the 1AR will be very persuasive to me if they point that out)

- That being said, Interps should probably be in the context of the res, Aff's should either point out it doesn't or draw lines from their interp to prove we meet

- Please make these clean, messy T debates are really easy to cause and make everything harder

- Procedurals should have some relation to the res

- Extra-T and Effects T are both cool, but need thorough explanation (I would know cause some 1NRs I would just say it without like a decent explanation). Will definitely vote on it though (probably Extra more than Effects cause Extra is more justifiable)

DAs

- Specific DAs = perfect

- There can be 0% risk of a DA

- It's very important that DAs have some form of external impact compared to the Aff, please do impact calc that frames the impact stories and their interaction (through like turns case or time frame/probability/magnitude)

- Evidence specificity is important when it comes to DAs

- Politics DAs are potentially alive now, stay within reason, I value recent ev over tech (unless you're spinning the ev harder than Beyblades), I also need you stay coherent with the link story

- Diversify Links and give them some short, flowable labels

CPs

- Sufficiency framing should work for most things except structural violence impacts

- Smart, specific CPs are great combined with specific DAs

- Creative Perms are good

- CPs should be competitive, at least functionally if not both textually and functionally

- Affs should call out shady CPs (i.e. the process of the CP or how the CP would solve the Aff)

- Clear up the technical parts of process CPs as I can get lost in the jargon when it's not explained clearly

- I won't automatically judge kick (I also am adverse to judge kick)

- A K was in all of my 1NCs except for one round my senior year (the break down is something like 55% Abolition, 35% Cap/Historical Materialism, 5% Security, 5% Settler Biopolitics, and then like 0.1% Borders)

- FW is so underutilized

- I'm still confused with high theory Ks (like pomo type stuff, am familiar with the theories but the more vocab you throw at me the more I'm gonna get lost)(race/identity based stuff I'm super familiar with and am comfortable deciding on as long as it doesn't get messy) but I'll do my best (I've run Cap/Historical Materialism, Borders, Deschooling, Security, Abolition, and Bioptx and debated a plethora)

- Link stories are important and explaining exactly what part of the Aff you are kritiking (your life is so much easier if you impact out links)

- Overviews that require a page or half of my flow are not good and will annoy me, ESPECIALLY if you start doing just all the K work on the other page, cause then what's the point of that initial K flow

- Case debating is very important, I'll give the Aff leeway on weighing the Case vs the K if there's 0 contestation throughout the debate/in the 2NR (i.e. Case impacts, value of debating the Aff on FW, Perm explanation, etc.). Neg's can challenge this by either A) actually implicating case args with the K or B) on the K flow, explaining how it relates to the mechanisms of the 1AC/Aff, if that make sense

- K alts should be explained (i.e. explain how the world of the alt would looks), they are often the weakest parts of the K so please try to explain them in some way that resolves the links and the Aff (I use the language of resolve because the Alt doesn't need to "solve" but like prove how the Alt addresses the bad assumptions of the Aff and the harms that the Aff attempts to address); Also, please don't make your K's just sad tarnished case turns.

- Diversify the Links (either with cards, how they explained the Aff would function, or how the Aff is written), if you read generic evidence, please explain how it relates to the Aff and how the Aff is what the card is talking about (generic links are probably alright if they relate to the Aff in some aspect, i.e. if the card doesn't have x part of the Aff in the card or mentions the Aff in any capacity, the Neg should explain why the card still applies)

K Affs

- Explain what voting for you means and what my vote means in the context of the Aff (I know that I vote for the better debater, at least that is my default understanding of what the ballot means, but what is the advocacy/worldview of the Aff), both sides must explain the importance of the ballot in relation to the Aff (There's a big difference between advocating for a method related to the topic vs pointing out how x thing is racist and that's bad, etc.; Just because I read K Affs doesn't mean I won't vote on presumption if I have no idea why I vote Aff or what the Aff's method is trying to accomplish)

- Please have some form of advocacy, related to the topic, that you can defend throughout the debate (Don't shift it because it confuses me more and probably gives more leverage to T/FW; consistency is key for Aff offense and fighting the zump)

- I'm much more persuaded on Models of Debate discussions paired with turns/offense over straight Impact turns to education and fairness (doesn't mean I won't vote on education and fairness turns, I just happen to be more familiar with these debates over Counter Interps/Models of Debate)

Neg strats

- T/FW - Debate is a game (a very fun game), Fairness is more of an internal link (Like debate is a game but education/portable skills is stuff we actually get out of round, it's the telos), I prefer Clash/Advocacy Skills/External Impacts over the usual Fairness/Education, TVAs are great and almost always a must. Focus on forwarding offense cause these debates can get compartmentalized, contextualize your blocks (please clash with the args instead of reading your blocks, this goes for both teams) (I find many rounds when I was Aff where I got away with a lot of things b/c of the moving parts of offense). I understand the small distinction between T and FW but at the end, it comes down to models of debate (that is gonna be my default unless you make the distinction clearer for me)

- K's - I understand Historical Materialism/Cap the best out of all the K's in K vs K Aff debates. Probably neutral on whether there are Perms in a method debate (ofc depends on the types of methods engaged in), link debate and framing is where I determine whether I should allow a Perm (FW debate too, probably). Please PLEASE contextualize links to the Aff's method or theory's assumptions, it makes the Link clearer and gives the Aff less room for link turns/Perm explanation.

- Other strats - PICs, procedurals, Counter Advocacies etc. are strategic and interesting. I'll listen to them but will probably evaluate them similar to some of the way I view things above. Feel free to ask specifics.

- Case is/can be important for either 2NR you would go for and some of the Case cards should be cross applied if not referenced. 2NRs not getting to Case gives 2ARs way too much room to use the weight of the Aff vs whatever the 2NR was, which I'm sympathetic to because there wasn't an answer to case (super helpful during my Senior year when Case was like barely anything in the 2NR)

Theory

- Theory is pretty cool

- Specific theory = even cooler

- Contextualize it to other arguments run and what happens in the round, this is probably my weakest area to judge a debate on, partly cause if you go too fast, I can't write everything down (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ACTUALLY COMPARE STANDARDS AND INTERPS, it gets frustrating when both teams just rant about what their interp on theory is, without actually clash between the two)

- Ask if there are any specific views that I have on CPs and other things (Condo is dependent on the situation, PICs are good, Word PICS are 50/50 (probably need a good interp on what words you should be able to PIC out of), Multi-plank CPs with more than one solvency advocate aren't good, Dispo is just spicy Condo, Process CPs are meh, Con-Con and NGAs are boooo)

- This is probably my weakest area to judge (ironic for a former 2A), so please please please make sure that you're clear when spreading through your blocks and make sure that you're doing the right work, because I really don't want to do the comparison for you, especially if I wasn't able to get half your standards

Case

- If I didn't have a DA or T, I always took Case in the 1NR, it showcased how important/helpful it is for in depth case debating that relates back to whatever the 2NC took, whether it was a K or DA or CP

- Offense and defense matters, make sure to frame them

- Impact turns that are smart are great (Won't vote on Racism good, Sexism good, etc.; I don't think I understand Death Good well enough to be able to form an opinion, at least the high theory Baudrillard level of it) (PLEASE don't just card dump, I've done this before and it wasn't clean; if it works against a K Aff go for it)

- 2AR/2NR framing/judge instruction is pretty important and very helpful, didn't realize how important it was until I started listening to some of my speeches, there's a big difference between extending your offense and framing offense against each other and giving me words to write in my ballot and give in the RFD

Lily Raper Hire 6 rounds

Nikhil Ratnam Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 5:11 AM CDT

2A @ Greenhill, Sophomore

2N @ Greenhill, Junior

2N @ Greenhill, Senior

***if you have any questions about my philosophy don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts

TL;DR

Tech>Truth, Specific>Generic, Put me on the email chain- nikhil.v.ratnam@gmail.com

Competing interpretations is how I default in this debate. Tend to view these debates in terms of offense/defense. Winning internal links to predictability/precision better than limits in a vacuum. Teams that go for T that have no idea of what impact they are going for is a terrible debate to judge, but a good T debate can be hype.

I Like them. Winning turns case only matters if you win a reasonable risk of the DA. I would recommend going for a DA as a net benefit to a CP. If you are going for a DA and the squo you should probably spend a reasonable amount of time on case just to be safe. Ev quality can sometimes be underused especially in a politics debate, 1 good card extrapolation on ev comparison is better than 5 bad cards. I think that a lot of the politics das I’ve seen on this topic have really bad I /L chains. You need to win the I /L chain to access turns case.

Love them. If deployed correctly cheaty counterplan debates can be hella fun to watch and to judge. Again I’m a 2N so I’m all for Abusive CPs but will probably err aff on theory in these debates. Majority of my 2NRs have been some type of CP+DA. I prefer case specific CPs as opposed to generic ones. Don't be constrained by not having a solvency advocate for smart CPs that test the affs mechanism. I think that all CPs should be functionally competitive, having said that I can be convinced to vote for a process CP that is not competitive if the aff doesn't push hard on theory. If the 2nr says judge kick and the 2ar doesn't respond I will strike the CP off of my flow. If the 2AR responds to it- I will probably err aff. Nothing is a reason to reject the team besides condo. I think infinity condo is the only non-abritrary number for condo. I don't really like the idea of teams spam reading theory in the 2ac just for time skew so you probably shouldn't do that in front of me.

K-AFFs

You probably won’t be reading a K aff if I’m judging you because all affs in the novice packet defend a plan text. However if you so need to read stuff outside of the packet this is for you: You probably don't want to read a K-aff in front of me- I am pretty predisposed to thinking that teams should defend a plan. FW is a true argument. I evaluate fairness as an impact- I think that fairness is an intrinsic good- a loss of fairness implies significant negative impact on the activity. I think that if you are going for framework in front of me fairness is probably the easiest impact to win. I default to viewing TVA's as a CP to the affs interpretation. Impact Calc and comparison are extremely important in these debates.

If the first minute of the 2nr is just a bunch of buzz words that nobody understands I probably won't vote for you. I do tend to go for cap a lot against hard right affs which aren't that common on the immigration topic. Im well versed in Neolib, Security, Citizenship, and other lowish theory and identity kritiks. I'm fine with vague alts- but that probably means a substantial portion of your 2nr should be allocated to framework. I think that negative teams need to not just win links to the plan, but also links to the permutation. A way for the negative to frame this is explaining how the framework debate impacts the permutation. i.e. if you are winning that they should be responsible for their representations then a permutation which severed the representations would no longer be legitimate. If you are going for the K in the 2NR I'm more willing to vote for you if you get to case and explain why the K o/w's- again impact calc and comparison are extremely important in these debates. With all that being said- you probably don't wanna be reading high theory stuff in front of me. Organization is also crucial in these debates- if the 2nr is all over the place your speaks probably won't be high. I also think that getting to case in the 2nr is pretty important and if you are obviously winning turns case and your impacts on the K its pretty hard for me to default to the affs framework interpretation.

Speaks

I'm pretty normal when it comes to speaks. If you ask, I'll disclose my speaks after my rfd... idrc. I'll be pretty generous with my speaks in novice so as long as you don't do anything egregious, your speaker points will be fine. I'll try to stick by this:

>29.7 - You really shouldn't be in this division

29.4-29.6 - Top 3 speaker

29.1-29.3 - Should be in deep elims/very good speaker

28.7-29 - Good shot at breaking/decent speaker

28.3-28.6 - No glaring problems but nothing great - average is probably a 28.5

27.8-28.2 - There were some strategic errors/probably will go <.500

27-27.7 - Keep working!

<27 - There was a problem and we talked about it after the debate

*The only caveat to this is novices reading k-affs. I discussed the reasoning behind this above, and my disagreement with defending a non-topical aff in novice debate will be negatively reflected in your speaker points. If you would like to talk further with me about this before the round, please feel free to do so.

Other Stuff

Don't steal prep- if I catch you doing it it probably won't reflect well on your speaks

I don't count flashing or emailing the speech doc as prep

Don't Clip- If I catch you clipping its an automatic loss and zero speaks. If the other team catches you clipping- they must provide some form of evidence or else I will drop them and give them zero speaks.

Im chill with open CX- with that being said if your partner is doing all the speaking during your CX I will probably dock your speaks.

With everything being said- do whatever you want I will do my best to evaluate every argument unless its racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Make jokes if you can you should be having fun when you are debating. Any joke about any Greenhill debater, Aden Barton, Ali Khambati, or any cool meme that I appreciate is + an entire speaker point maxing out at a 29.6.

Alex Witheiler Greenhill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 17, 2020 at 2:21 PM EDT

2N @ Greenhill, Freshman

2A @ Greenhill, Sophomore

2A @ Greenhill, Junior

2A @ Greenhill, Senior

***if you have any questions about my philosophy don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts

TL;DR

Tech>Truth, Specific>Generic, Put me on the email chain- alexwdebate@gmail.com

Love them. If deployed correctly, counterplan debates can be fun to watch and to judge. Majority of my/ my partner's 2NC/R have been some type of CP+DA. I prefer case specific CPs as opposed to generic ones. Don't be constrained by not having a solvency advocate for smart CPs that test the affs mechanism. I think that all CPs should be functionally competitive, having said that I can be convinced to vote for a process CP that is not competitive if the aff doesn't push hard on theory. If the 2nr says judge kick and the 2ar doesn't respond I will strike the CP off of my flow - so 2As respond. Things are a reason to reject the team if you make them one.

K-AFFs

Speaks

>29.7 - You really shouldn't be in this division

29.4-29.6 - Top 3 speaker

29.1-29.3 - Should be in deep elims/very good speaker

28.7-29 - Good shot at breaking/decent speaker

28.3-28.6 - No glaring problems but nothing great - average is probably a 28.5

27.8-28.2 - There were some strategic errors/probably will go <.500

27-27.7 - Keep working!

<27 - There was a problem and we talked about it after the debate

Other Stuff

Don't steal prep- if I catch you doing it it probably won't reflect well on your speaks

I don't count flashing or emailing the speech doc as prep

Im chill with open CX- with that being said if your partner is doing all the speaking during your CX I will probably dock your speaks.

With everything being said- do whatever you want I will do my best to evaluate every argument unless its racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Make jokes if you can you should be having fun when you are debating.

Elmer Yang Hebron High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 6:16 AM CDT

Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD) and just recently graduated with a Business degree from UT-Austin. I currently work at a FinTech firm as a Business Analyst and do part-time independent coaching. I coach, judge, and research a decent amount so I can follow-on substantive topic jargon but don't be overly aggressive with acronyms.

TOC Conflicts - Actively coaching Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, Westridge TW, San Mateo YR. Conflicted with St Agnes EH, Westlake MR, Strake JW, and Strake NW.

email - elmeryang00@gmail.com

This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.

That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.

Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):

1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.

2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.

3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.

4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.

5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.

Lastly:

1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.

2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.

3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.

4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.

Login to Tabroom

Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational

2020 — Colleyville, TX/US

NCX Paradigm List

Judges