Lindale Fall TFA
2020 — Online, TX/US
Congressional Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LD: Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any point made during the entire debate, you should have evidential support. During the rebuttal speeches, don't limit yourself to stating you don't agree with opponents stance, give specific reasons why and provide supporting evidence. Give me clear reasons to vote and explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech. I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate and not a 1 on 1 policy debate. If you choose to go beyond a traditional LD round, make sure you are understood, are easy to follow, have evidential support for all claims made, and make sure that what you say is related (have a clear link) to the resolution and opponent's case.
Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later on in round, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. Correct parliamentary procedure should be followed.
CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech. If you ask me what my paradigms are at the beginning of the round, I expect you to follow them and adjust your case accordingly. If you don't, then I will default to a policymaking paradigm if not given a clear way to evaluate the round by the debaters. I am not a fan of Ks since most I've heard are not well done or explained thoroughly. No new off case arguments in 2NC and both aff and neg cases must be extended through the entire round.
IEs: I've judged all IEs for 30 years for different circuits and different levels. On interpretation events, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want. For all INTERP events: It's your performance. Entertain me! For informative, if you are using props, make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On EXTEMPT, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow standard speech outline (including hook, intro in which the topic stated, a clear answer is given, and a preview of pts to be discussed is presented; body with pts supporting your answer to the question; and a conclusion in which the topic is restated, a clear answer is given, a review of the pts discussed is provided to tie speech together, and refer back to the hook to give a note of finality) and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech.
PF: The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery.
WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.
I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it. I like to hear authors' credentials the first time it's presented (per debate rules of evidence) and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round. Weigh impacts and pull through framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater from a traditional circuit and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.
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. :)
LD: To me, LD is still, at least somewhat, a Value debate. It isn't Policy debate for a reason. Yes, I understand that it has gotten more progressive, but understand judge adaptation too. However, you can still run a somewhat progressive case while respecting a Value Debate premise. That's the sweet spot. Weigh the impacts of both sides of the resolution. Give evidence (empirical, theoretical, philosophical), and give voters. Convince me which world I would rather live in - the affirmative or negative. In other words - if you don't tell me why, I'm not likely to vote. Spreading evidence only gets you half way.
CX: See most of LD, except remove the Value Debate part. Weigh impacts of both sides. Direct CLASH! I will not vote solely on T unless it is completely unanswered by the aff. Give empirical evidence - not a card that is just someone's onion that you are trying to pass off as evidence. Negative, clash with the aff's case, but bring some offense too.
CX and LD - be kind, professional and understandable.
When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.
LD I prefer a Value debate over framework. Neg side should clash with Aff so if you are trying to argue a different format than aff it is like two ships passing in the night. LD by design is a debate over morals and philosophy (what is better for society) but again I will listen to any well structured argument.
Extemp Make me laugh, use crediable sources and only walk if you know how to do it. Don't let the walk mess up your speech. I want the sources but I am more intersted in your analsis of the topic.
Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If we can not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? In person if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, please adjust.
I've got quite a bit of experience in Public Forum, LD, and Policy. I will understand your terminology for the most part, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations. I've been participating in speech and debate for 14 years, coaching for 7, and this is my third year in Texas.
PF: I tend to prefer the debate to tad a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal.
I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.
Lastly, I will rarely ever vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaks. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:
1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your goal is to practice the art of knowing and preparing arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-8 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time.
PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.
2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual. In a virtual debate, just sit it's fine).
3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards or cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for LD and Policy only. If you spread though slow down on tags, and always include a short analysis of cards and argumentation.
4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in LD and Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.
5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and will likely affect your speaker points.
6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have the a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.
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 am a parent judge with kids in speech in debate that do extemporaneous speaking. Please be respectful during the round, talk clearly, and provide evidence and reasoning to back up your claims. I value confidence, fluency, humility, stage presence, vocal variety, and logic.
CX- Old fashioned stock issues. I will vote on DAs and CPs. I am very skeptical when it comes to Ks and they come with a high burden when running them. T is a stock issue and I will vote on it. If you sign post and make my life easier, I will make it easier for you when writing the ballot. Do. Not. Spread. Communicate.
LD- I really love topical debates. I would almost prefer to hear arguments for the topics with the values sprinkled in than pure value debate. Do. Not. Spread. Communicate.
PF- It's PF. It's not CX. I want good line by line argumentation and heavy sign posting. The more you keep in order on the flow, the better your chances at winning the debate.
Extemp- I will almost overlook the amount of evidence if the speech is good. Remember to stick to your outline.
Analysis should be on topic, important, workable, & on-balance advantageous. Prefer conversational pace. Logic & reasoning are highly valued
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
I did congress for four years and graduated from Plano West in 2020. My advice for congress is don't be mean and actually have a debate –– every speech after the first cycle needs to interact with the speeches before it. The last cycle needs to have crystals. I'm also going to be really really annoyed if debate is one-sided when people in the round could have flipped sides. I'll take an average speech that was a flip over a good speech that was the third speech on the same side any day.
I notice when competitors are super cliquey in the round. It's really obvious when a group of debaters already know the PO well and all get good precedence. Please don't make me tell you to not screw over small schools.
For POs -- Make sure you keep speech recency and precedence, otherwise you should not preside. For regular questioning, keep precedence for sure, and make sure to track recency as best as you can. I WILL be keeping track. Don't waste time + don't let the speakers waste time either + don't be corrupt, and you can expect at least T3 from me.
My high school was kind of insanely good at extemp so while I personally was not really an avid competitor in the event, I know what a good extemp speech looks like. A good structure in your points will take you a long way.
For any other event:
Treat me like a lay judge lol
Speed is fine if it is understandable. However, your speaking style must be clear and easy to follow along with. No spreading.
Quality over quantity.
Arguments should be understandable for a lay audience as well.
Please tell me what I should vote on and make my vote easy.
A good PO makes the round efficient and fair. There should be little to no errors being made.
Please respect others in the round :)
Name: Jay Stubbs
School Affiliation: Bellaire High School
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp
What is your current occupation? Debate Coach
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.
Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.
Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.
Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.
Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.
Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.
I evaluate your arguments in a Congress session in relation to your effectiveness in delivering them. An effective Congressional Debater is one who is committed to making sure that the judge understands the arguments and information they are presenting. When a debater's commitment is limited to getting information into the debate they are assuming that I will gain the same understanding of the information that they have.
Introductions should be creative when possible. Generic intros are frowned upon greatly.
Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis.
Devoting time to the summary/conclusion is very important.
Ending speeches at 3:00 is very important. Speeches ending at 3:10 show a lack of discipline and preparation.
Questioning should be focused on exposing weaknesses in opponent's arguments. Questions that cause little to no damage are of marginal value. There should never be a time when the questioner and respondent are both talking at the same time for more than a brief moment.
Respondents should view questioning as an opportunity not an adversarial activity. Attitude and unnecessary aggression will be scored lower. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable if there is no reasonable reason why you should know the answer. I would like to NEVER hear the answer "I am sure you could tell me." I can not tell you how much I really don't appreciate that response in a questioning period.
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