NEWMAN SMITH SPONTANEITY 41
2020 — Carrollton, TX/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideExtemp
-
I encourage a conversational tone that is engaging. The student's tone should not be too formal nor too relaxed.
-
When explaining certain topics, make sure you explain them in-depth and in an understanding way that is not condescending.
-
I support jokes as long as they are appropriate and fit the topic of discussion.
-
Make sure to keep a steady pace. Each body paragraph should be around the same length. Within paragraphs, I would like to see at least 1 piece of evidence used, including the introductory paragraph.
-
The camera position should be placed directly in front of the student. I should be able to see enough of the student's body to see their five-point-walk.
Oratory/Informative (also see extemp)
-
Oratory should be engaging. I enjoy characters throughout the speech as long as they are purposeful.
-
Movements should always be purposeful. No need to act out a scene just to act out a scene.
-
I would like to see numerous pieces of evidence in each body paragraph including the introductory paragraph. Each piece of evidence should bring something new to the table.
-
The camera position should be placed directly in front of the student. I should be able to see enough of the student's body to see their five-point-walk.
Oral Interpretation
-
The introduction should be around 30 seconds and should be spoken by the student's true character.
-
Teasers are great. Make sure they give us some sort of insight into your piece. Don't just choose a random teaser, it should have symbolic meaning/personality.
-
All movement should be purposeful only. Do not pace around. I do not encourage acting out a scene just to act out a scene or have movement. Your movements should tell a story. Bring the characters to life through tone, vocal variation, infliction, body language, and movement, etc
-
The camera position should be placed directly in front of the student. I should be able to see enough of the student's bodies to see their movements. Try not to be too far from your microphone.
-
I enjoy character work. Although, characters should also be purposeful and distinct and accents fall under this. If you do decide to implement an accent, make sure it is consistent throughout your performance. Make sure you implement different levels to your characters. You do not need to constantly be intense to get the point of your character across. Subtle characters and small movements also add to your performance.
-
I do not condone making fun of a certain group of people or the use of racist remarks (unless you are using an example to make a point)
-
I am fine with cursing and with trigger warning pieces/mature material
-
If all your pieces sound like one voice, I believe that you have accomplished the ability to blend and weave your pieces well, and this I support.
-
Remember, with POI’s, they are not supposed to be completely memorized so make sure you look at your binder occasionally.
Hi, all!
I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.
Debate Events
I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.
LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.
I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.
WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.
Jimmy Wolf / Last Updated 02/06/2025 for Yellow Rose Districts
Email Chain - (jimmyjimwolf@gmail.com)
*I prefer email chains, TLDR in bold
--PF Paradigms--
--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.
-
No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.
-
No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.
-
If your strategy involves reading more than three off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.
--Preferences--
-
Offtime Roadmaps
-
Signpost
-
Formality
-
Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents’ advocacy).
--General--
-
All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)
-
My default framing is cost benefit analysis (CBA).
-
Absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.
-
Given the times in PF I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).
-
I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.
--Non Negotiables--
-
The second rebuttal must respond to turns.
-
Summary should consolidate.
-
Extensions must include warrants.
-
Final Focus should be voters and weighing, most rebuttals in FF will be dropped. Arguments in final focus should also be presented in the summary to weight. My RFD is heavily based on consolidation and the arguments presented in the FF.
--Style--
-
Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.
-
Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.
--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.
-
Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.
-
Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.
-
Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality
--LD Paradigms--
--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.
-
No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.
-
No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.
-
If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.
--Preferences--
-
Offtime Roadmaps
-
Signpost
-
Formality
-
Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).
--General--
-
All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)
-
My default framing for LD is utilitarianism.
-
For policy based resolutions, absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.
-
Given the times in LD I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).
-
I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.
--Non Negotiables--
-
The 1AR must respond to turns.
-
The back-half of the NR and the 2AR should be voters and weighing. Most blocks in these speeches will be dropped, frontlines will flow through though.
--Style--
-
Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.
-
Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.
--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.
-
Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.
-
Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.
-
Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality
--CX Paradigms--
--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.
-
No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.
-
No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.
-
If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.
--Preferences--
-
Offtime Roadmaps
-
Signpost
-
Formality
-
Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).
-
Final focus should be line-by-line voters on framing and weighing. Weighing can be easily done on impact calculus. Please only do crystallization if you and your opponent are ignoring framing. Rebuttals in final focus will most likely be dropped.
--General--
-
All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)
-
My default framing is stock issues.
-
I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.
--Non Negotiables--
-
The second rebuttal (1R) must respond to turns.
-
Summary should consolidate.
-
Extensions must include warrants.
-
Counterplans must be competitive/unique
-
Given the times in CX I want quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.). There is more than enough time to extend these from poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. impacts.
--Style--
-
Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.
-
Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give me (and the other team if they request) the doc if spreading.
--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.
-
Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.
-
Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended to vote on.
-
Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality
--Congressional Debate--
-
Speaking is important in this event for me. I judge probably 65/35 on arguments vs speaking, respectively.
-
This is a mock Congress. Debate as such. Do not forget that you are a Representative/Senator.
-
I also take participation in the chamber into account. Ask questions, call motions, vote, etc.
-
Please present clash if you aren’t giving the authorship/sponsorship. Simply saying the name of another student and claiming they are wrong does not count.
-
I try to stay pretty educated on politics, but I won’t know the ins and outs of every bill/resolution in the country. Make sure you are clearly explaining what you are talking about