Lindale Fall TFA
2020 — Online, TX/US
Extemporaneous Speaking Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated in CX all four years of high school and I just graduated so it's still pretty fresh on my mind.
I'm primarily a tab judge. I'm comfortable with any argument, just debate it well and tell me why you win on that argument.
I'm okay with spreading, just make sure to make the tags clear :)
Topicality, Theory, and K's: I'm okay with these arguments, just make sure to explain them and how they apply to the debate and not just read cards.
Counterplans should have access to the Net Benefit for me to vote on it.
Overall, just have fun!!
I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.
I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.
I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.
I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.
My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 8 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).
Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.
The first element in any forensic competition is clarity. If I can’t understand you, I can’t evaluate what you have said. That does not mean that debaters can not spread, but if they do so, it must be done with strong articulation. Signposting in debate rounds is extremely helpful for all parties in the round. You want me to be able to flow the round if you want to win the round. Reading your tag lines clearly and with emphasis is very helpful.
I am open to judging more than one debate paradigm (tabs judge) if the paradigm is clearly identified and understood by all participants in the round including me. It is the debater’s burden to explain it and support it. I was trained to be a stock issues judge, but can easily switch to policy-making when that is how the arguments are structured. The Tabula Rasa model – as long as debaters have agreed upon the standards in the round is also acceptable. Unless the rules of debate and the rules of how to best structure and refute each form of argumentation are severely violated or not upheld, I will not use the game player paradigm. In other words, the debate theory attack must be an obvious violation or you are wasting your time with me. Don’t trivialize the argumentation process. I will vote on topicality violations in the round when they are well justified, but the topicality violation must be obvious. The affirmative must be prepared to refute it. The topicality argument must be run correctly with standards, violations, impacts.. You must refute and clearly cross-apply your arguments. The aff has the burden of proof when it comes to each of the stock issues of the round. The point is that the affirmative knew their case before entering the round and must be well prepared to defend it. I love well-argued counter plans and kritiks, but they must meet the structural rules of these forms of arguments. Disadvantages should have a link, brink, and impact and please, everything does not end in a nuclear war. Make sure your internal links in all arguments are strong and be prepared to connect them for the judge. Tell me what I need to know and understand. Group arguments well and do not drop attacks. When refuting and argument, It may be a really dumb attack, but you have to refute it. Sometimes all that is needed is one sentence to do so and then move on. Please signpost! Rudeness may not cost you the round, but it will have a disastrous effect on your speaker points and a note to your coach. In a round I watch to see how well teams listen, really listen to each other, and then do they present a good refutation of what they have just heard, not just something random stuff they pulled up. Rounds, if you listen well, can be won on logic alone. However, I do favor solid evidence and prefer the quality of evidence over quantity. Dates and sources in CX matter. Do not get caught lying in a round. That will cost you the round.
LD is NOT CX. Keep it a values argument, not a policy one. Uphold your value and use your criterion to do so well and cross apply all arguments to our opponents. How does your value achieve upholding your side of the resolution better? In LD, I place more value on eloquent speaking skills than I do in CX. Persuade me! Continue to signpost well. Do not drop arguments
Congress - I am looking for well-delivered speeches with claims, warrants, and impacts. Use all the elements of effective delivery. I look for fresh unique arguments and do not give points for arguments that are redundant. I give points for speeches that help to advance the debate.
Congress - I look to see that the parlimentarian has an excellent understanding of the parliamentary procedure and helps to keep the round progressing at all times. The speeches of the members of Congress should not rehash or repeat what has already been said, but instead, add a new perspective to the argument. The best speeches will combine evidence and logic to support any emotional appeal. Speeches should have evidence of a logical structure that makes them easy to follow. Delivery should be clear and extemporaneous and not simply read. I also examine how well the speaker answers the questions.
Extemp - I am looking for a 6 to 7-minute speech that is well organized with a clear statement of the topic and a preview of the points in the introduction. I dislike canned attention getters and would prefer an attention-getter that actually relates to the topic in some way. This is not a debate. Do not use debate terminology in an extemp round. To be eloquent transitions must be used from point to point, summations should be made at the end of each point and possible links back to the original question made. Do not be repetitive or redundant. Show me the breadth and depth of the knowledge that you possess that relates to the question, not extraneous information that you are obviously using as a filler. Language, word choices should be advanced and appropriate for the topic. Conclusions should summarize your points and please provide a snappy ending that perhaps links back to your attention device. Delivery should be smooth and body language displays confidence. In persuasion, I am looking for analysis, and the speaker must take a clear stance. And in informative I do not want persuasion. Remember in informative it is always the opinion or idea of someone else. Provide me a few or many ideas on the subject and do not advocate one idea. You are not arguing your question in informative.
I am a retired speech coach and a theater director and when it comes to interpretation, my years of theatrical experience at developing characters and telling stories affect the way in which I judge. Provide clear, well-built characters. Make them plausible. Now I realize some of our wonderfully comic characters may be exaggerations. That’s fine. Suit the character development to fit the genre. In any performance, one of my biggest complaints is when a performer does not telegraph. Let me explain. Humans rarely blurt out our feelings without any nonverbal expression leading the way. We are not good at maintaining a poker face. However, do not overtly do this. Then it is overdone and fake. Remember the eyes are the windows to the soul and before you tell me, I must see it in your eyes or something in your nonverbal expression. Those elements delight audiences and make you plausible. Otherwise, you are just spewing lines. Understand the subtext of each line. Why did the author write the line? Use beats. Study the syntax. A sense of timing is crucial to the success of your piece. Know the storyline. Where is your peak? Where is your resolution? I often sit at the back of the room for the rounds to allow you to express yourself. I do not want you yelling the entire piece. Build if needed to the climax where you may need to be loud. Perhaps you are loud in the opening to get our attention. But vary your volume, please. You have to have somewhere to go. Please realize that louder is not always better. Humans often keep their emotions deeply under control, and so will the characters that you portray. Use all the wonderful elements of delivery you have available - your voice, body (watch moving too much, follow the rules), your mind. Having performed on stage for years and directed for years, I adore this competition. Entertain me! Make me laugh. Make me cry.
Please use a tagline that explains how to flow each attack, extension, or additional evidence. Be sure to extend every argument from speech to speech! I DO NOT flow crossfire, so anything said during crossfire should be brought up in your next speech if you want me to flow it in the round. :)
Hi, y'all! My name is Rachel and I competed for Salado High School for four years, The University of Texas Speech Team for four years, and am currently a first year law student at Texas Law.
I was primarily and LP'er (limited preparation fan -- extemp and impromptu) and PA'er (public address superfan) during college. I competed in Congress during high school and served as the Congress Curriculum Director for The University of Texas National Institute in Forensics after graduating in 2019. Although I never competed in interp, thanks to the Texas Speech Team (and living with a DI national champion), I have watched many interp performances and know what does and does not work.
First rule of extemp: answer the question! If you don't read the question carefully, odds are you will not answer what the question is looking for.
Excellent sourcing is a must. I do not look favorably upon CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.
I look for a solid substructure within the speech. The speech should flow easily and be coherent to even non-speech judges.
I am not a fan of the grace period. During the world of online speech, you may time yourself.
I want a solid structure to the speech. If I cannot follow the path you are trying to lead me down, I am not going to look favorably upon the speech. This means you MUST preview in your introduction.
Transitions between main points are also essential.
For OO, the solutions need to be tangible and something that I, as an audience member, can do. If the solutions are abstract and not something I can accomplish -- you are not completely fulfilling your role as an orator.
For INFO: the implications are the heart of the speech. Your implications must encourage me to examine the speech through a lens I would not have otherwise considered. I do not want cookie cutter implications. Most of my comments will likely be placed here.
I will flow your speech and point out any holes that may exist for me.
I do not pay attention to delivery as much as I do the meat of the speech. However, I would love to see well intentioned delivery.
Preview in your introduction.
You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?
The only time I will excuse no clash in a speech is if you are the author/sponsor or the first neg.
You will not be rewarded for re-hash.
To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.
Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.
I will mostly focus on your argument to make sure it's clear! Most of the comments you get from me will likely be about the structure of the introduction.
I jokingly say this when students ask for paradigms but I super mean it: I don't have PF paradigm because most of the time y'all don't listen to it. If I directly tell you my paradigm and you clearly flout it, I will consider this means to dock speaker points. If there's one thing I can give you here: don't be abusive. If you are abusive, I will automatically drop you.
Thanks and hook 'em!
Congress-I used to be a Congress debater, so I am very focused on both the way you communicate your arguments as well as the arguments themself. If you are a good speaker with no clash and non-unique arguments, you will not be ranked over others who have more wholesome arguments. Additionally, I do focus on Parliamentary Procedure, and this can make or break a round. Bad control of the room is reflected on my ballots. Finally, quality is always better than quantity. Just remember, if I don’t notice you in the room, it will be difficult for me to compare you to other debaters.
Debates-I enjoy a good flow of debate, and I must be able to recognize what is being argued. A lack of clear articulation of case arguments will hurt your debate as a whole. Additionally, I am open anything during the round, but be clear when you intend on introducing an obscure aspect to your roadmap. Signposting is not necessary if I am sent your case.
Speaking-I will focus on clarity and articulation of arguments in your speech, as well as your arguments themself. All arguments should work with each other to express one clear idea, and a failure to connect each argument to the topic of your speech will yield to a lower overall ranking.
I did Public Forum debate at St. John’s in Houston, TX for four years. If you have any questions about anything written here, please feel free to ask before the round!
In any debate, the most important thing is weighing. Particularly in close rounds, explaining why your impacts should be prioritized over others is critical to helping me determine who won. If you do not weigh, I will be forced to intervene and you may not like how that intervention plays out.
In order to have an argument, you must extend at minimum a warrant and an impact.
(i.e. if you tell me the sky is green and the other team does not respond to it, the sky is green) Having said that, outlandish arguments will have a very low threshold for a good response. In that example, simply mentioning the sky is not green would be a sufficient response to win the argument. You do have to interact with every argument, no matter how outlandish, however.
1. An argument you go for (i.e. want me to vote for) should have a warrant and impact extended in both summary and final focus.
2. I did not run progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, CPs) during my debate career. Generally, I do not think progressive argumentation belongs in PF as it increases the barrier to entry of the event. I may not know how to interpret such arguments in the context of a PF round. If you choose to run them, you do so at your own peril. I am not very receptive to theory unless there is actual in-round abuse.
3.Offense not responded to after second rebuttal is conceded and must be weighed against (excepting turns/other offense read in second rebuttal).
4. With a 3-minute summary, defense should ideally be extended in summary where possible.
Speed: I can handle it, but I would prefer not to see it. I think that skills students learn in debate should be transferable to other activities outside of debate.
Arguments: I have experience both participating in and judging PF and LD. If framework is introduced to the round, I prefer to see arguments link to the framework. I also tend to vote for competitors who weigh impacts. In LD, I tend to prefer traditional LD arguments, but I am able to flow other arguments and will vote off what is said in the round.
Email for email chains: email@example.com
I did LD debate and DX/FX for 3 years at James Bowie High School. Had a lot more success in speech than debate, qualifying for state in DX/FX twice. I'm also experienced enough in debate to be able to evaluate most types of arguments.
Speed: I'm fine with speed, but I'm mediocre at actually hearing everything so being able to read your arguments will help me a lot, unwritten args I'd prefer if you slow it down a little, and emphasize tags.
Arguments: I'm totally fine with progressive/policy arguments like DA's, CP's, Theory, T, K's, etc. I did not run much theory or many K's, but I did hit them often. As long as it's very clear what you're saying then I can keep up. If it's extremely complicated then maybe reconsider running it. Keep Theory/T/K's a little slower.
Speaker Points: I usually start at about 29 and go up or down based off of strategy/overall cohesion of your arguments/case. I tend to give high speaks in general.
I like to keep rounds pretty casual to avoid unnecessary stress, so feel free to ask me anything but just be polite to everyone in the room.
I have done policy and LD for 3 years. I currently do parliamentary debate and IPDA debate.
What I like: I really enjoy line by line argumentation. Structure is key for a good debate. I enjoy critical arguments or anything fem
What I don't like: I really enjoy critical arguments but I rarely vote on K. I don't like cases that have no impacts or structures. As a female debate, I understand the sexism that some female debaters may face. So in no circumstance would I listen to an argument that is inherently racist or sexist.
My name is Ivin Lam (he/him) and I competed for Tuloso-Midway HS from 2016-2019. I competed mainly on a local and state level but made it to nationals for mainly speech events. That being said, I did decently well in LD and consistently qualified for TFA and UIL state.
If you want to do an email chain my email is (firstname.lastname@example.org). I do not care if I am in an email chain unless you plan on spreading.
I am a hardcore traditional debater in LD and have a high preference for value-criterion level debate. With that being said, run any argument that you want and have fun with it. Just don't expect me to follow it well if it is NOT the traditional value-criterion style. Consider me a lay judge for things such as kritiks, CP's, etc. Also of course nothing offensive, sexist, racist, etc. Debate is a place to learn and have fun. If you need to ask if it's acceptable then please do so.
Have fun and never be afraid to ask me questions.
Traditional: My favorite style of argumentation and the one I know best. I really have no problems with any arguments run in this fashion but please refrain from anything offensive, racist, sexist, etc. Please have a specific Value (don't just say it's morality or life) and ensure that your framework is not cyclical. I mainly pay attention to the Value and contentions but please put effort into the entirety of your case as a whole. Traditional as a whole is fairly simple and I don't believe write more than "Have a good FW" but if you have any questions feel free to ask.
Kritiks: Kritiks are fine as long as you make sure to explain it to me like I'm a 5-year-old lay judge. I find it easier to understand structural kritiks (like cap) but as long as you can explain it well then I should be fine. As long as you can make a strong link/connection to the topic and your opponent's case, I'll still see it as valid.
Counter Plans & DAs: Same as my opinion on Kritiks except for this time it's easier for me to understand so you can explain it like I'm a 10-year-old instead.
Theory: I see theory as extremely trivial and unless there is something that is actually hindering the ability to debate in the round then I see no need for it other than to create clarifications or ground rules for the round. This does not mean that you can't run it. I'll still hear it out. But you'll have to have a strong justification to convince me.
Other: In all other argument types please assume that my paradigms will be similar to that of my opinion on kritiks. If you're still unsure just ask or run it anyway.
Speed: I'm fine with most speeds but if you plan on spreading, speaking close to that of spreading, or in a similar fashion, please put me on an email chain as that will harm my ability to judge, and therefore, your ability to convince me that you should win the debate. I will also focus more on the quality of the argument rather than how many you can list off so keep that in mind.
Flowing: Please have proper signposting and do line by line! The less messy my flow is the better it is for everyone. I flow everything including Cross X. I eventually condense things down to major points so if you want to be flowed make sure you say so in your speeches.
Prep time, Open prep, closed prep, etc: I'm fine with any type of prep y'all choose as long as all parties agree on it. I will not flow prep but if you plan on bringing anything up from these periods please say so. You may time yourselves during these periods but I will be also timing and will be going off of my time.
Speaks: I don't have much of a standard when it comes to speaks but generally anything lower than a 27 will mean that you did something extremely wrong or offensive. Otherwise, you'll start at a 28.5 and get a lower or higher score depending on how I view the round.
Just for fun: Any joke cases that you run will give you full speaks if it can make me laugh. I will also award full speaks for those who email me a hand-drawn picture of your favorite animal.
Yes, Email Chain: email@example.com
Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.
I tend to fall in the perspective of a tabula rosa judge, evaluating each round within it's own parameters. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.
While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.
I am absolutely a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, but I can appreciate a crafty and logical use of them. This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you. While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters.
Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.
I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.
Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.
!! Note on Inclusion !!
Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
For TFA State:
Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.
Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.
Worlds School Debate:
School affiliation/s : Northwest High School
Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School
Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No
Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.
Check all that apply
__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_____I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before?
I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.
What does chairing a round involve?
Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?
I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.
Will vote on anything.
Do what you do best.
Feel free to ask specific questions in round.
I did pf in high school (graduated from flower mound in 2020 & a freshman in college right now), pf wise I'm tech over truth and you can run whatever as long as it's not like something no one would be able to respond to. I vote off the flow and speed is fine, just be clear. cards are important, don't misconstrue but analytics are def also valid. preferably extend everything through every speech including summary, but up to you. if you want more detail on pf look at Nikhil Guddati's paradigm, for how I do speaks/topicality/K's/theory. also, be nice (v important)! on the off chance you're reading this for extemp, I did that in hs too and I'm content > delivery and I know everyone messes up but I'll know if you're just lying lol.
Last updated: September 12,2020
Background: I graduated from Karnes City High School in 2017. Debated at Texas A&M University for a year (policy) and graduated in 2019. I have a M.L.A. with an emphasis in Government from Harvard University and am currently a 1L at the University of Dayton School of Law in Dayton, Ohio.
Simply put, I am a tabs judge with heavy emphasis on stock issues. You run it, I’ll flow it. But I expect you to either carry those arguments throughout the round or kick them. Debate is educational, make it that way. Big fan of the T debate-- have every element of a T arg if you one one. Have a strong link to DAs or don’t run them.
Speed is ok as long as I can understand the tagline, author and date. Please analyze each card you read after finishing it to allow for better understanding for all parties in the room.
I tend to think I am a traditional judge. I follow traditional debate theory. Although young, I am an old debate judge at heart.
Ways to win a round: Cover all arguments and then provide meaningful impact calculus with tangible warrants that uphold your claims (VERY important at the end of the round). Convince me that the impacts of your side of the debate outweigh the impacts of the opposition.
I have extensive high school and college debate experience and am more than willing to help each team as much as I can. I am here as a resource, use me! If I don’t know the answer to something, I will certainly find it and get it to you!
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
LD: Howdy Y'all! I am a former debater who has competed on different levels, I am well versed in how an LD round should run and what to expect from the debaters. That being said, My voting comes down to three main points; Framework development/analysis, the extension of arguments, and presentation of the debater.
I expect the debater to be able to provide a clear Value and Criterion that is weaved through their case and show how they are able to meet this value by the end of their round. This allows me as the judge to view the round their framework and understanding why I should vote for their side. As well, I expect that debaters extend and cross apply their framework throughout the round.
Anyone can give an argument on why their case is better, however, extending and building on one's argument is golden in my view. Having the ability to 1) build on arguments and carry them through your speech, 2) provide clear warrants and impacts, and 3) cross apply them back to one's framework.
Although the first two points are important, it ultimately comes down to how you present this to a judge, such as myself. I do not like speed, please speak at a normal pace to me (how you would read a book that you enjoying or how you would speak to your friends). Going too fast will make it hard for me as a judge to know what you're arguing. meaning that if I can't understand what you're saying, it makes it more difficult for me as a judge to judge the round. Please signpost during the round as it makes it easier to follow the round (whatever you can do to make a judge job easier always looks good !) I expect competitors to be courteous to one and another, although the round may get heated, that does not give anyone the right to be disrespectful. Also, as previously mention, I do not like speed or spreading. I will not flow what I do not understand. The last major point presentation is organization. What gets always undercuts good speakers in LD is the lack of organization. Be on top of your time and be sure that speeches are well formatted where I can logically follow.
If you have any questions concerning my ballots please ask me after a round.
I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) Please keep cameras on during the round, muting microphones is fine. I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.
LD - Create clash with values and criterion. Please do not allow speed to hinder your communication. Signpost and present a roadmap to help the flow of the argument.
I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!
Byron Nelson High School (2018-Present)
Royse City High School (2013-2018)
Online Stuff [Please record your speech if you can in case of tech issues. You absolutely should be sending your case over additionally because of mic issues that can happen.]
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.
I like disclosure, don't like disclosure theory.
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round.
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges.
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you did something really gross
-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you.
-I will NOT shout clear at you, but I'm pretty nonverbal so if I'm not with you, you'll see it.
-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but check with your opponent before starting the round.
-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.
-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!
-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in
-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had during the round. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.
-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops
-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot
-The phrase "Cold Conceded" STILL makes me want to puke
FLASH YOUR EVIDENCE OVER TO YOUR OPPONENTS SO WE DO NOT WASTE ROUND TIME FOR YOU TO FIND IT. If you aren't okay with sharing the case you better have your evidence ready to send or I'm docking speaks heavily.
Summary Speech should start collapsing on what you're wanting to focus on in the round
Final Focus should be comfortable with collapsing down on a couple arguments rather than carrying the whole flow
Extend what you want to carry to the end of the round
[Entry current as of the 1/12/21 after my debaters bullied me into making it shorter :(, stay humble]
TFA State Congress Stuff (20-21 season)
I'm just going to answer the posed questions:
Thoughts on rate of deliver/number of arguments addressed?
-Definitely more extemporaneous of a delivery, it doesn't have to be a full out DA/Adv kind of thing with speed and argumentation. Just elaborate on your main points and use those sources effectively.
Thoughts on use of evidence/how much to cite/is it necessary
-Your arguments should have sources, especially if you are going to impact out to some big stick claims, you are gonna want a source to back that up. Sources are necessary when your analytics require more than you just wanting to believe your claim is true. Use evidence is the point i'm getting to here.
Thoughts on use of clash/necessity of bringing up new arguments to keep debate moving
-Whoo buddy, I don't want ten speeches of the aff/neg repeating itself. I know you prepped a speech but be aware of where we are on the floor debate, its much more useful for you to clash or crystallize after the first two or three speeches. This is a huge thing in congress and it needs to progress to more clash and less prepared speeches over and over
What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks?
A good PO just keeps the chamber running efficiently. I don't need to hear yelling about prefacing, make it less about you showing me you run the chamber and more about you actually doing it. I think in a virtual world this is even harder, so if you can make it happen without a lot of downtime, and precedence is on point, then you're gonna rank pretty well.
POLICY DEBATE--Policy Maker with a Stock Issues background. This judge weighs Advantages and Disadvantages. Counterplans okay but not a fan of Kritiks. Clash is important. Documentation is a must. Neg, state if you plan to split the block. Comparative arguments are okay but must be presented well and well-documented. Spreading is fine IF I can understand you. Be cautious because online you want to be sure the judge understands you! Be reminded of public speaking skills. Courtesy is of the utmost importance. Use eye contact with the camera.
LD DEBATE--Courtesy in the round is of utmost importance. Because LD is based on philosophy, whoever has the strongest arguments has the advantage. References must be documented in the speech. Spreading doesn't belong in LD. Use eye contact with the camera.
EXTEMP--Catchy introduction. State the question. List points. Explain points. Document evidence for each point. Refer to introduction in closing. Eye contact with camera is important. This judge prefers no notecard but understands if needed. Remember enunciation and public speaking skills.
For CX Debate, I am a stock issues judges; I love stock issues and think they will guarantee a fruitful debate. However, I really am willing to listen to any argument as long it makes SENSE.
Please, do not force me to listen to some overdone kritik that does not link any way to the affirmative teams case. I also think that debate should be a communication activity; I think every word is important and I would like to hear all of them. If you can make yourself understood while spreading, go for it. If not, that is ok; I believe in quality of arguments over quantity.
Most importantly, have fun and be respectful to all in the room.
Wylie High School (2015-2019)
UT Dallas (2019-?)
- scroll down if you want event by event specifics
- With whatever you run, I prefer a link to the rez
- Be strategic and collapse
- I prefer a speechdrop for all debates, whether CX or PF. Again, just a preference. I flow slower than most and prefer the tags in front of me. And for the love of God, please don't flash, or do an e-mail chain. It's just speechdrop.net, I'll set it up if you need help. everyone gets at least 29 speaks if everyone agrees to an e-mail chain/speechdrop
- I don't care how we run the round, just don't get me in trouble with Dave Huston, Jason Warren, or any of the other tournament directors
Should you strike me/be wary of me:
Unless you debate and a progressive, theoretical, and philosophical level that's above my head, I think you'll be fine. As much as my debate understanding goes, I can comprehend everything up to a traditional policy debate round but have been learning a lot since graduating and judging on the circuit. Ultimately, if you think I might not understand what you're running, try to make the round educational and see if we can both learn something.
Here are some personal prefs concerning args/debate:
- I'm cool with K's, but prefer a link to the rez. I still don't understand the concept on running non-topical K affs, but if you make the case for it I'll vote for it. I don't read K lit in my free time or anything so if you want it i need an explanation.
- If you're running theory let there be a clear abuse violation, and then, detail it to me and why it should be a voting issue, but please don't lay all of your eggs in one basket.
- I don't understand tricks. I'm so sorry.
- I can tolerate a good T debate, stress on the word "good". If it's bad i will go run to tab and ask to give a double loss
- Impact calc is cool and i like it
- Disclosure good. Just know I won't vote for disclosure theory against a small program. On this, please don't make the debate one where disclosure theory becomes the primary focus of the round, I'll be sad
- When extending, please cite the warrant, including the tag and the card, It makes flowing so much easier.
- Putting your pronouns on the tabroom blasts is super cool and awesome!! You should do it!! I'll show you how if you want!! Regardless, introducing yourself in the round with your pronouns is super cool. On this above note, don't try and joke about pronouns. That's an automatic 25
- Expect an L25 and the immediate stop of a round if you try to make debate an unsafe space. This is up to my discretion.
- on TWs: I don't find myself needing them, but that doesn't mean others will not. If you run a case that may involve one, ask if your opponent is ok before you do
- If you're rude during cross-x don't expect any speaks higher then 27. Tense cross-x's are really hard for judges to sit through. Also, I don't flow CX, you should extend anything said in CX during ur speech. I was likely distracted by y'all's tense cross x where I was too bothered to pay attention
- If the debate is a varsity debater against a relative novice, make the round educational and adapt. Both competitors should agree on whether to take the debate on a certain level of K's and phil
Event-by-event quirky things
- CX: run what you like, but please see my warning about my limited comprehensibility of phil and certain K's.
- LD: i really like framework and framework clash, but it's certainly not required. unlike most LD judges, i'm ok with the idea of one-person-policy, but let's not get too extreme out there
-PF: DA's and CP's good. If you want to run anything beyond that ask. I'll probably be down. Be nice. Please collapse and be strategic. If it's not extended into the summary and FF it won't be voted on. Voting issues in the FF is a must! Bonus speaks if everyone agrees to a speechdrop or email chain.
- Congress: For the PO: don't suck lmao. I'll vote you up as long as you don't crash and burn. I'd prefer open chamber as regulations allow. If you're speaking beyond the second or third negative, you need to have rebuttal args or clash; I won't rank you good if you give a boring contention speech. Also if I hear rehash I might puke. I like to think of Congress as a lay hybrid of extemp and debate, so definitely use those extemp skills.
- Speech: Give it your all and don't adapt to my preferences. On trigger warnings/content warnings, I personally don't need one, but fellow competitors might (a TW/CW might be needed for graphic depictions of SA, DV, abuse, etc.). Err on the side of caution and preface one if you think they might be warranted. They're usually best placed in the intro. If not needed, then just go lmao. If you run a graphic piece and someone ends up actually triggered because you didn't warn them about a sensitive topic that you're performing don't expect a good rank. I only include this information about TW/CW because the debate over their usage has definitely resurged, and don't doubt the good that they do in the safe space that is the speech and debate community. Use proper caution and discretion and I won't care.
Have fun everyone!! i'll post updates as i think of them
Preview in your introduction.
Credibility of sources is very important and I will not credit a point that has no sources at all. We are not looking for opinions only in Congressional debate.
Clash- This is a debate event and the only time for no clash in a speech is if you are the author or the sponsor or the first negative speech.
Do not repeat the same info over and over again in later speeches. What do you have to add to the previous speeches. Pay attention to what each prior speech has given us.
To PO's: Make sure you know what you are doing and handle yourself and the round in a way that moves the round along by the rules.
I expect civil discourse. Rude or abusive behavior in any aspect of the speech is unacceptable.
Debate in general:
No personal attacks, attack the arguments and not the person (play nice)
Speaking quickly is fine as long as you realize punctuation still adds to understanding, (spreading for no purpose other than speed is discouraged)
If it is a debate, there should be a clash.
Enjoy the civil, social discourse.
It is a performance. It should be well, polished. Each and every movement should add to the delivery and performance.
hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.
1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline
2. defense is sticky
3. PLEASE signpost. I will cry if you don't.
4. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.
5. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.
Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.
Theory: I will probably never vote off of it, especially if it is paraphrase or disclosure theory. If you are gonna run it in front of me, make sure you do a good job and thoroughly explain your argument.
Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.
Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.
I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.
Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)
If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.
If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at email@example.com