Tabroom.com

ACTAA Junior High Invitational November

2020 — NSDA Campus, AR/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

David Adams Hire 8 rounds

Madeleine A Bashara Hire 8 rounds None

Evan Beck Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 2, 2021 at 9:28 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Evan, I go to University College London and I study Politics, Sociology, and East European Studies, I did debate for 3 and a half years in highschool qualed for TOC my senior year.

PF-

Boring technical stuff-

>include me in all evidence exchanges please:)

>Tabula rasa (everyone says this but built different I guess), I will never be the type of judge to rattle off a rebuttal during my decision, if it wasn't said in round, it won't affect my judgement, no matter my opinions on topic/argument/political stance

>Flow/flex judge, can handle some speed, that being said speaker points may lower if you're not clear.

>better/more clear arguments always better than speed though

>I much prefer one really well thought out, explained, and carded response to 10 blippy ones with no warranting, don't just flood the flow because you can

>Progressive debate is fine but don't be abusive, don't read theory unless theres actual abuse, will buy disclosure if done well and opponents are running a squirly case, will definitely buy paraphrase, will 100% buy any theory about things that ruin the space of debate for some(TW, excessive gendered language, etc.)

>that being said, progressive debate will make your job as a debater significantly harder, if you think you can win progressive arguments you might as well run normal ones if you just want to win the round

>Must extend through every speech, if not extended through summary will consider it dropped especially on impacts

>Please don't bring up an impact, statistic, or voter in final focus if it wasn't in summary

>Impact calculus is very important but 75% of the time won't be the reason I vote a team up, especially if its done without case extension/defense

>that being said if i'm evaluating 2 arguments extremely closely and one had impact calc and the other didn't I will always vote for the former

>Tech>Truth most of the time, don't run obviously wrong args tho

>Please run unique or interesting cases, stock with spikes or weird warrants are fire too

>aggressive during cross is fine, however don't be a jerk, don't speak over your opponent, don't be rude

>don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, instant 0 speaks and most likely vote down, debate is supposed to be a safe space

>will call for evidence even if not brought up during round only if it seems extremely sus, if you want me to look at evidence I will post round, say it in speech and i'll evaluate it as need be, it's the debaters job to recognize sus evidence, not mine

>please both quantify impacts as well as actualize them, "GDP skyrockets" (tell me how much) "GDP rises by 200%" (better/fine, but what does this mean for people, or government, or one specific area) "GDP rises by 200% meaning every mom in America can by 2 more jugs of chocolate milk" (perfect)

-fun "quirky" stuff-

>I don't care what you do in round as long as it isn't blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, illegal, or something that could get me in trouble

>cursing is fine but no need to over do it

>TKO, if you think your opponent has literally no paths to the ballot you can call technical knockout, 30W if right, 25L if wrong

Congress:

>please don't be boring

>clash is an instant way to get my attention

>if you bring up the same points as everyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you use a prewritten speech late session that doesn't respond to anyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you read off of a laptop or ipad don't expect to be well ranked
>don't be obnoxious with parli pro

>funny intros are enjoyable

>speeches should be atleast 2:30

>use logic or evidence in your speech, make actual arguments please

If you have any questions email me:) i sound mean but i'm not, I just would rather express what I explicitly want in a round so there's no guesswork

evanbeck2021@gmail.com

Joelle Buckner Hire 8 rounds

Brooke Skyler Decker Hire 8 rounds

Carson Reed Duca Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 28, 2021 at 5:55 PM CDT

Carson Duca

UARK '25

TL;DR

Put me on your email chain: pleaseflashanalytics@gmail.com (you don't actually have to flash analytics, this is just my debate email lol)

I'm fine with speed, but stay clear

Open cross

Run whatever you want to run, but I am more experienced with policy arguments than kritiks

Have fun!

Policy (CX)

Policy is the main style of debate I competed in. I personally always preferred to run policy arguments rather than kritiks; however, I have faced kritiks plenty of times to be experienced with how these arguments are ran. I will vote for either type of argument, but I am much more experienced with cutting cards to construct policy blocks, so I have much more expertise with policy arguments. That being said though, don't let that stop you from running a kritik or a k aff because I will vote for either argument, just bear in mind that you might need to explain the story of the kritik or k aff and how it directly interacts with your opponent's arguments more thoroughly for me to vote on it.

Topicality

As the affirmative, don't be shy when answering T.

As a neg strat, I enjoy T debates if they are not just simply a time suck.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

As the affirmative, clearly explain why the case outweighs (more on that later) the DA, try and get some offense on the DA flow if possible but it's fine if you only have defense. Call out the negative if they don't have a net benefit for their CP. Don't forget to perm and try to advocate for the perm in a way that is specific to the CP if possible.

As the negative, make sure your uniqueness evidence on the DA is good (especially on PTX DAs) or else it's really easy to dismantle for the affirmative and it's just a time suck at that point for whatever else you're running. Also, make sure your CP has a net benefit and specifically explain why the affirmative can't perm the CP.

Case

As the affirmative, please don't drop significant portions of case because then it's almost impossible to vote for you. In the 2AC, make sure that you do sufficient line-by-line directly answering their evidence against your case with warrants from the 1AC cards. In the 1AR, I understand you are in much more of a time-crunch than the 2AC, so try and extend what was said in the 2AC on case as briefly as you can while still doing it. In the 2AR, clearly articulate why the case outweighs the off-case argument(s) the negative is going for using impact calculus.

As the negative, if you are running policy arguments you must clearly explain how the DA directly links to the aff and why the aff can't solve for the DA and also why the aff can't perm the CP. If you are going 1 off K or you decide after the neg block that this is what you're doing, please still do work on the case flow. I understand that you might not necessarily have to do this because you are advocating for the alt, but it still makes it easier for me to vote for the K if you do some work on the case flow.

Kritiks

Please don't read kritiks as a time suck. I have made ballot commodification DA arguments during the round when teams contradict themselves by running a K that ideologically doesn't align with the DA(s) they are running or when they decide to kick out of the K and go for a DA with an extinction impact. I personally really believe in this argument so I would recommend running this as the affirmative if the negative does this. Read my general policy sentiments above if you haven't already for even more of my preferences regarding kritiks.

Theory

I think theory arguments are really cool and I will vote on them. I haven't really been in many rounds where theory won the round, but if you go for it, please clearly articulate how your theory argument impacts the round rather than just reading a short blip in an attempt to get the ballot.

Public Forum (PF)

I have never competed in PF at a tournament, but I have watched many rounds and helped judge practice rounds. Please just be nice to each other, especially during crossfire where I feel like it can get really pedantic and petty. Remember, I'm voting on the arguments you make during the round, not if you make your opponent look bad. Also, please use evidence and don't take your evidence or your opponent's evidence out of context. Please don't be abusive with when you take prep time i.e. after the first speech if you are the second speaker. Please give me a road map and when you're giving me a road map please don't say "their side then my side", rather, say "pro then con" for example.

Lincoln Douglas (LD)

I have never competed in LD at a tournament, but I have watched a few rounds and I feel like it is somewhat compatible with Policy. I don't have a huge preference and I am willing to judge whatever you want to run. In regards to progressive debates, you might be better off reading my general policy sentiments above especially in how I view policy arguments versus kirtiks.

Big Questions (BQ)

I actually have some BQ judging experience at the Junior High level, but I have never competed in BQ at a tournament. I don't have a huge preference and I am willing to judge whatever you want to run; however, generally I feel like you just need good line-by-line to do well in BQ after setting up your own arguments in your first speech and expanding on them in the later speeches so that you can apply your own arguments specifically when doing line-by-line.

Congress

Please don't just speak to speak. If you are just trying to get a speech in without adding anything new to the debate, I'd rather you not give that speech on that particular bill. Please stop speaking when the P.O. is gaveling you out. Please don't stand and raise your placard until AFTER the P.O. asks for everyone to stand. Don't talk to other members of the chamber especially when others are speaking. Address other representatives as "Representative *last name*" if possible. After being selected to give a speech, say your last name, what school you're from, what number of speech that is for you in that specific session and the side of debate of the speech you are giving. For example, "Representative Duca from Bentonville High School rising for the 2nd time of this session to give a speech in affirmation".

If you are the P.O., explain your gaveling procedure before the debate cycle begins and please remain unbiased when selecting people, just go off of precedence and recency to the best of your ability.

Adrian Esau Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 26, 2022 at 10:56 AM CDT

TL;DR

Speed is good just be clear and emphasize key arguments

Add me on the email chain adrianesau523@gmail.com

Be respectful

Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments

Cross important for speaks; make sure to utilize it well

Slightly truth over tech

O/V

I have did debate for four years at Cabot, and have experience in every type of event besides congress. My preferable event, however, is LD There are sections in this paradigm that go over my opinions about PF along with sections about certain types of LD debate strategies that are used often. Also, there's a really brief congress paradigm at the bottom.

Public Forum

It doesn’t really matter to me what you run. Follow basic public forum rules. If you spread or talk exceedingly fast I’ll most likely vote you down since that’s considered abusive unless the opponent just goes with it. At that point it’s fair game. In the rebuttals, make sure to be organized , and I prefer line-by-line with numbered responses if you have more than 1 response. Final focus should be strictly weighing and voters. No new args should be brought up in the summary and should be used for extending your own case.

I don't really care what style you debate in as I have done both traditional and progressive LD. A major thing for me is that if you are to run a progressive case, you need to clarify your major impacts and make sure I catch on within the jumble of arguments you're spreading. Other than that, follow basic guidelines for spreading such as slowing down on taglines and etc. The following things are my viewpoints on the progressive arguments that could be used and just my basic viewpoints on clash and case arguments.

Topicality

If you can convince me that the opponent isn’t topical then that gives you some leverage. However, I don’t think that running just topicality and not touching any of the opponent's case is acceptable. If their arguments aren’t topical, explain why. Don’t just claim that they aren’t topical and not give any reasoning for why that is because at that point I’m not considering that as a legitimate argument. Topicality provides a way for good clash in a debate, but it shouldn’t be the only thing argued throughout. There should be other arguments ran so it’s not the only clash within the debate.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

I really enjoy this strategy, and I think it provides a fun, creative spin to a debate. Disads should be relevant and not built with out-of-date empirical evidence. Their needs to be a clear link of why taking the action of the resolution is bad, and have a clear impact of why the argument is even prevalent or important. Counter-plans are fun to run, but should be realistic. It should be able to sell it’s point of why the plan should be preferred, and should have evidence backing the plan. I would like to see how the plan would be enforced also that way I don’t have to interpret it for myself.

Case

I think a good case debate is important. I like case turns and outweighing impacts better than last minute arguments against the opponent's case being brought up because you were too busy trying to sell your own points. Defense is good, but their needs to be some sort of offense. Otherwise I have sat through a debate listening to two different sides of the topic without any clear turns or rebuttals, and I don’t think that makes for a good debate whatsoever. What ends up happening is entire contentions being dropped, and nothing for me to vote on other then who was a better speaker. I think debates should be more than that so make sure there is a genuine clash between the two cases, and not just you reading off your case and a bunch of backfiles of evidence just building already made arguments.

Kritiks

You should have a well developed Kritik shell when running this strategy. You should provide a general analysis of how it is related to the round, and have a clear link to how the argument is topical with the resolution. You should give a clear reason why I should vote for your K and how it should be weighed in the round. An alternative provided after the K would be preferable, especially if the implications of the K are applicable to the pre-plan world. If you are to go against a debater running a K, it’s important that you attack the framework of the debate as the kritik your opponent runs sets up the standard of the debate. I think it’s important that the opposing debater tries to control framework as it is a major part of any LD debate.

Theory

I don’t have much experience when it comes to this particular debate strategy. I’ll vote for whatever as long as the theory is constructed well and clear as to what it is advocating. The theory should have the four parts of a basic theory shell (interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). The standard the theory sets up should be realistic, and be able to clearly show why the interpretation is good for the debate. The warrant should clearly give a reason for why I should consider your theory. The usual voter is fairness and education, but feel free to read any voter you think of as long as you can warrant why it is important for the debate.

Congress

I don't care what perspective you take when speaking on a bill. The more unique the takes, the better. I just ask that you don't be homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist. It should go without saying but be respectful and have fun!

Brooklyn Evans Hire 8 rounds

Tristen Farris Hire 8 rounds

William Fry Hire 8 rounds

Lillian Goins Hire 8 rounds None

Sara Hardin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 31, 2020 at 7:31 AM CDT

I have done Lincoln-Douglas, Congressional, IPDA, Public Forum, Informative, Extemporaneous, and World Schools Debate. Due to this, I know how different forms of debate work and will judge as such.

IF YOU SPREAD AND I CAN'T GET ALL YOUR POINTS, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE. Keep the debate nice a civil, remember you are attacking your opponents case NOT THEM. Any disrespect will not be tolerated.

For LD, I love when you keep up with value and criterion. I am an evidence person, so when you have a point, you better have the facts to support. For first neg speech, you better rebuttal. I know the struggle of this, but it will cost you later if you don't. If you don't and the aff doesn't point it out, then thats their lost and I will flow the rebuttal even if it's after the first neg speech.

For Congress, it's not consider disrespectful to call out other debaters as long as you refer to them as Representatives/Senators (and then their last name). The purpose of the speeches after the authorship is to rebuttal and bring in new points NOT TO CONTINUE TO GIVE THE SAME POINT. I do a lot of congressional debate, so I know the struggle of getting procedures right and getting flustered. So I can relate to you so don't be scared when doing procedures or giving speeches.

For IPDA, I know how it works, so don't try and pull one over on me. Do not spread and/or be disrespectful. Make sure to give links, roadmaps, signpost and give impacts and you will be good to go.

For Public Forum, you don't have to have framework, but if opponents give it, you better argue against it if you disagree. Don't spread, and DO NOT BRING IN NEW POINTS IN SUMMARY OR FINAL FOCUS. Summary is meant to summarize the main arguments and why you are winning NOT A DOWN THE FLOW SPEECH. If not brought up in Summary speech DO NOT BRING UP IN FINAL FOCUS. Again, I know Public Forum, so don't try and pull one over on me.

Have fun, don't be scared and have confidence. I love clash, but I do not tolerate anyone being disrespectful. If you become rude and/or mean, the ballot will go to your opponent, end of discussion.

Olivia Johnson Hire 8 rounds None

Vaisakh Karuvath Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 2:50 PM CDT

Hey! My name is Vaisakh Karuvath. A little bit about me: I have performed in all styles of debate with my main styles having been World Schools and Congress. Don't let that allow you to underestimate my experience in Policy, LD, or PF. I've also competed successfully on local, state, and national circuits, IF it's necessary.. I can elaborate on my experience in round. As a judge, I mostly have experience in debate, however I have competed in Prose, Extemp, Oratory, and Storytelling. I will always do my best to judge the round completely fair and constructive. If you have any questions after round, please feel free to email me at vaisakhkaruvath@gmail.com

As a debate judge, this is what I look for:

- Of utmost importance to me is a respectful and engaging debate. If I see that you are in any way being a disturbance to a good quality debate, I can guarantee you that the round most likely will not go your way.

- I love clash! It is one of my favorite things about debating, it truly brings out your skills as a debater and a speaker to the maximum. Make sure to stay organized and know your material, if not, the debate sounds very monotone and will not be enjoyable for anyone.

- Let's address speed for a second. I am all for speed and I am mostly fine with it, but if you decide to spread in any other event than Policy, just stop and ask yourself what you're trying to do because it really doesn't work. LD has certain leeway for me, but that is highly tournament based.

- Direct me through your speeches. Don't expect me to infer what you're trying to say or impact. Address everything and tell me why it matters. At the end of the round, I will most definitely be looking at who has the bigger and better impact; that is what will win you the round. I do flow everything, however, don't expect me to infer and rely on my flows the entire round; it is your job to convince me why you won the round.

- As for cross, there is not much to say. I will definitely be paying attention, but I will not flow it. If something is said in cross that is important to the debate... use it in your next speech so I can weigh it along with the other arguments. Make sure to stay respectful in cross!! Being aggressive does not make you a better debater.

- If a card is called for, I expect that it already be cut and ready to be sent. Given the chance of technical difficulties, it shouldn't be taking 10 minutes to send a cut card. Come to round prepared, I don't want to see cards being cut in round.

- Just a quick thing to know, I DESPISE definitions debates. They do not serve any purpose unless there is a clear misconstruction of a definition, but I doubt that will ever happen.

- Progressive debate within Public Form and Lincoln Douglas is perfectly fine with me. But, just make sure you know what you're doing and make sure you know what you're talking about. It can be easy to get lost, but sometimes progressive PF and LD can be super fun!

- In terms of speaks: everyone will start out at a 28.5 and can go up or down from there. To get good speaks from me just be confident, present yourself well, be respectful, and be engaging.

- Finally, just a quick thing to address. Any racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, or bigoted/demeaning comments/arguments will result in a swift loss for you. None of this is tolerated, it is not to be seen in debate. We are all friends here.

Style Specific:

Honestly, this is going to be a lot, so just look for the style you're competing and it's fine if you just read through that. And, once again, if you have questions just ask me in round!

PF - Alrighty, I really enjoy debating unique cases in PF especially if they link to the resolution well with weird and fun, but relevant take on it. So, I'm definitely going to enjoy watching a round that has good debate between two different cases that aren't generic or common. Let's discuss framework. I honestly do not care about framework, it does not matter to me... however, if you do provide a framework, DO stick to it because that is what I will use to weigh the round at the end. If you are opposing a team that has brought in a framework, you still need to ensure to show how you win based on the framework they provide if you don't have a framework as well. If both teams have a framework, it will likely get muddy, but whomever can show me which one is more relevant and beneficial will get the ballot. I will be defaulting to cost-benefit analysis if no framework is provided and try your bestnot to center the debate around the framework, it really makes it less enjoyable. Some of the biggest things you should focus on is line-by-line argumentation, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Along with this, ensure you extend everything through each speech; if something is dropped or is not mentioned in a speech, I will flow it to the team who made the last argument for/against it. However, it is still the opponent's job to mention that an argument went unanswered for the sake of showing me why it matters that they dropped it. By the end of the round you need to be able to show me which arguments matter the most and what I need to look to in order to come to a decision. I do flow, but it is your job to tell me which ones have the bigger and most beneficial impacts by extending and weighing through the last speeches.

LD - Let's talk about Lincoln-Douglas for a bit. Values and Value Criterions can be very helpful to you in a round especially if you have unique ones (that are topical and link to the resolution). If you utilize them well and prove why your value + criterion matter most AND how you fit best into the "designated" V/VC of the round, then the ballot will most likely go your way. DO ensure that you line-by-line argue/refute, extend your points and arguments throughout the round, and truly show me why your impacts weight/matter. LD is a very short round of debate, think about how you want to use and structure your speech time with your arguments.

CX - I have debated in policy before, but that was quite a while ago and rather brief. If I do end up judging policy, I will try my best and do try to bear with me. Spreading, of course yes... just make sure I'm on the email chain. There's a lot to be covered about policy, but I'll just briefly overview what I'm looking for based on my limited experience. Line-by-line is really going to be important here, ensure that the winner of the ballot is clear. If you're running a CP, make the outweighing net benefit clear and I have no problem flowing it to you. With a DA; do not far-fetch the link or internal link; go for the impacts and explain how the AFF causes a net bad problem and why it matters. I do not enjoy T's, I think most of the time it's just used to steal the AFF. However, if an AFF truly is not topical and you show it to me, I will for sure vote on it. I don't have much experience with K's or K AFF's, but ensure you provide a strong link (throughout the round) and extend the framework (keep it fair) throughout the debate, I will vote on it. Of course, I will look out for de-links and bad alts on the opposition side. Of course, you should extend everything throughout the round (I'm not going to weight dropped points), but always point out if a point was dropped and explain why that matters. Impact calc is going to be important, do not forget about that.

Congress - The biggest thing about Congress that you must remember is that it is a style of debate. I will be expecting you to go up and give speeches with strong argumentation and round relevant refutations. Too often in Congress rounds, I see representatives continuously going up and giving repeated 1st speeches without any actual debate. NO! That is not Congressional Debate, that is quite literally practicing multiple 1AC speeches. Those who are able to show me they come to round prepared and give speeches with well-written argumentation and good speaking skills will definitely be voted up by me. If you PO, ensure you know what you are doing. The round becomes very slow if the PO is unable to keep up and that is no fun, but I doubt that will be a problem! Questioning should always remain respectful and I will be paying attention to questioning also.

So, now that we've gotten all of that out of the way, Speech & Debate is a fun activity that I am sure we all enjoy so ensure to enjoy it to the full extent! Ride on the high of the win and if you lose, so what, come back better and stronger next time. You have room to grow! If you have any other questions feel free to ask me in round. I am very open and will most likely have conversations with you! Have fun and enjoy the tournament!!

Brylee Leatherberry Hire 8 rounds

Carter Lester Hire 8 rounds

Ashwin Aniruddha Marathe Hire 8 rounds

Harrison Merrick Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 14, 2020 at 8:13 AM CDT

I have been a part of the Cabot Debate program for four years, one year of CX and three years of PF. Most of my experience and understanding lies in PF, so please try to avoid excessive amounts of theory. I also have a firm understanding of Student Congress and IPDA. I can judge CX at a basic level.

Generally speaking, I prefer a few good arguments over a large quantity of mediocre ones. Don’t card dump. I tend to focus more on ideas in cards as opposed to last names so if you want to extend an argument please repeat the tagline to help me out with flowing. Because I don’t like card dumping, I don’t really consider myself to be Tech > Truth, however at the same time it definitely makes my job easier when all of the voters on both sides have been responded to. If your opponent has a flimsy link chain, point that out because I will gladly vote on it if it has been addressed. Crossfire/Cross examination are probably my favorite thing in debate, and you can rack up a lot of speaker points if you perform well during those times. That said, they don’t go onto the flow, so make sure to bring up any important concessions during your speeches.

As far as CX goes I’ll say my experience is minimal, so go slightly slower than usual and be patient. If you are going to spread I will flow to the best of my ability, but that said I cannot flow what I don’t hear. If you wish to flash or email me your case that would be helpful. I’m a fan of counter plans, but be wary that if permutation is an option and there aren’t any significant drawbacks to it I will vote on it. As far as Kritiks go I’m okay with you running them, but make sure to explain very clearly why it matters enough that I should be voting on it. I have an extremely high threshold for Topicality. I wouldn’t recommend reading T unless the plan is unrelated to the resolution to a degree that makes it blatantly abusive.

Largely similar to CX. I would prefer you didn't spread, and if you do I will only flow what I hear clearly. I'm okay with whatever theory you want to run, topicality probably isn't going to win you many points with me unless something is blatantly abusive. Make sure I can clearly understand what your value and value criterion are, why I should prefer them for the round, and how you achieve them better than your opponent.

Public Forum is designed to prepare speakers for (shocker here) Public Forums, and I therefore find it counter intuitive to use excessive amounts of debate lingo in this type of debate. I normally have pretty decent topic knowledge, but other than that pretend that I’m just your average Joe. I prefer that both sides collapse by the end. You should still be refuting points in summary, but definitely start streamlining the arguments into voters for me. By Final Focus there should be maybe 2-3 things that each side wants me to vote on. New argument won't be flowed during this speech. Crystalize your impacts and explain why they outweigh your opponents.

Congress is primarily a speaking event. You are looking to sound persuasive above all. Speak smoothly, signpost, and make me WANT to believe you. It's a little bit more abstract but that's just the way congress is. Knowing procedure well is a bonus but don't freak out if you have to ask a point of information to figure something out. I love questioning, make it interesting for me (but do try to remain civil).

IPDA is IPDA. Talk to me like I'm your friend. Make everything simple enough that I can follow. You can determine if a topic is "serious" or not, and I'm totally fine if you want to run unconventional forms of arguments.

Finally, have fun with it. Debate should be an enjoyable academic exercise for everyone participating. Remember that you can be assertive and still remain civil. If you want to read unconventional arguments I’m fine with that, just make sure that you flesh them out well. Good luck.

Harrison Mobbs Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 14, 2020 at 12:39 PM CDT

If you have any questions, please email me at hjmobbs@gmail.com.

LD:

I am the most experienced with this type of debate, though I prefer a traditional type of Lincoln Douglas. I generally hate spreading because that should be reserved for policy, so I think it would be best for me and your opponent to slow your speech, while also being efficient with your time.

On cases, as long as the evidence or framework (fw) is not utilized to target a specific group of people, not overly offensive, and is topical, feel free to use whatever case and evidence you want.

I am not too familiar with Theory arguments, but as long as you can prove that those affect the weight of the evidence/fw of the round, I can vote based on that.

On Kritiks (K), I will vote for it as long it sufficiently provides a reason why to absolutely oppose Aff’s case and to vote neg’s better plan, or vice-versa.

For CPs, I am fine with whatever is ran and whatever issues that plan can solve in addition to what is negated.

For tech or truth, I will weigh more in tech, unless the arguments/evidence is outright false (i.e. Slavery = good).

For what I am least familiar or comfortable with, I am not sure about LARP or Phil.

-In Phil, I am familiar with most (but not all) of the schools of thought but I have not really adopted any type of thought, so I'm more or less a Phil blank slate at the moment. If you have a Phil section/case, please make it easy to understand and not dense so that I can follow along with the flow.

-For LARP, I haven't fully grasped the concept of this type of case but it seems to rely heavily on policy-esque practices, which I do not wish to judge. If that is what your case is about, keep it to a level where I can understand it as an LD judge, not as a policy judge.

Finally, on tricks. I'm fine with presumption if that is your angle but don't make purposefully vague to gain the upper-hand on your opponent; that's just unfair. If you run that anyway, I will not vote highly in your favor.

Other notes: I also enjoy some pop culture (i.e. current memes) and historical references, so I will add on speaker points if you include something of those in your speeches and if done correctly. Other than that, good luck and have fun.

PF:

I'm not entirely familiar with this type of debate, but I know it functions nearly the same format for LD, so expect some of my judge philosophy to overlap between the two. Generally, I think you can run whatever you want, but make sure it doesn't target specific people and/or is overly offensive. With that, also make sure it is topical as well.

Make sure you extend case and clash with the opponent(s). If there are dropped args on either side, they are dropped and cannot be brought back up. Also, do not bring up new args in response speeches nor final focus.

Make sure the impacts are clear. While you can tell me all of the links you can make into your arguments, it doesn't mean anything if there are no clear impacts. Along with that, crystalize and give me clear voters as to why I should for you during final focus.

Signposting/Roadmaps are also recommended, so I know what to write for what. Make sure you also make the taglines and authors clear. With that said, I will not tolerate spread/speed speaking, so if that occurs, I will stop flowing. Other than that, good luck and have fun.

Congress:

This is the type of debate I am least experienced in judging-wise, so do bear in mind if I do not cover everything.

Just make sure you speak clearly and are persuasive doing so. I don't want to hear a bunch of garbage talking points just because you need to get your speaks; try to at least care about the bill/resolution at hand. Make sure to signpost your speeches as well.

If you are not entirely sure how a procedure is run, it is not harmful to give a point of information. Make sure you also know how each motion, point, etc. from Robert's Rules of Order before you spout out anything.

Lastly, the Questioning Period is a good way to get speaks and to also make the session more interesting. Try to make sure you are least somewhat involved with this part of the session, or else it will become the drabbest and most insipid session in our NSDA careers. Other than that, good luck and have fun.

Abigail Montgomery Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 4, 2020 at 2:39 AM CDT

Hi everyone! I’m Abigail Montgomery and this is my 2nd year in the debate program but my first year competing at CFA! I compete in Congressional debate but have also competed in Big Questions and Lincolin Douglas in the past.

TLDR;

Don’t speak super fast and make sure you’re speeches are a reasonable length

For any concerns, you can reach me at Montga2@cps.k12.ar.us

Don’t be afraid to ask each other questions, or answer them later in a speech

Please feel free to clash with your opponent, but stay respectful

I won’t tolerate any form of disrespect

Congress - I will be focusing my judging on how well you speak and the structure of your overall argument (don’t get up and just rattle on about the overall topic for 3 minutes). For POs I will be paying attention to your parliamentary procedure and how you overall run the chamber while also keeping track of your order of speakers. Don’t restate arguments and don’t be afraid to ask questions. If someone has previously stated one of your contentions then drop it out of your speech and move on. Don’t give a short speech just because you’re trying to get one in before the end of the round. You need to be respectful to the other people in your chamber as well, so be respectful during their speeches and questioning period.

LD - Please signpost your speeches when you begin and when speaking don’t rush your speech, especially since I will be flowing the round. My opinion on tech over truth depends on the resolution, but I will focus my judging on your overall speaking skills and how well your argumentation is. Don’t hesitate to call out your opponent on something they say, and you should always answer their questions in cross-examination. Don’t ever drop an argument just because of your opponent. You need to respect your opponent as well, I understand that you can get heated during a round but that’s no excuse for being rude or cruel to your opponent.

Isabella Parker Hire 8 rounds

Conrad Ramakers Baker Hire 8 rounds

Ava Ramos Hire 8 rounds

Kaylin Reeves Hire 8 rounds None

Wyatt Rice Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 14, 2023 at 4:15 AM CDT

Hi, I’m Wyatt, I have 3 years of debate experience in Congress and PF, but I’m also happy to judge LD. I also have 2 years of forensics experience. My paradigm is not super extensive, just some things to keep in mind.

ALL STYLES

Be civil. Debate is open to anyone, an educational activity that expands your thinking and speaking skills. If you can’t put aside any prejudices you may hold for the duration of the round, then you don’t belong on the circuit, and I will be happy to tell you that.

I judge based on flow. Speaker points will not affect the outcome of the round. That said, if your speech is unorganized and sloppy, then that could make it harder for me to flow, which could lose you the round
Logic and technical arguments will always move me more than conjecture and emotional anecdotes. They have their place but support your arguments with real evidence as well.
The PF circuit is becoming more progressive. If. Theory and off case (Kritik) arguments are valid, but must be well justified and well linked.
Don’t spread. Especially on the novice circuit.

Most of the same as PF above.
Make sure you connect your values through the entire round, don’t put them at the beginning of your speech because you think it’s required, and then never bring it up again. Don’t assume that I understand your link to the value.
LD is also becoming more progressive. Don’t be afraid to use Theory or Kritiks but still make sure that it’s airtight.
Spreading is acceptable BUT:

Start an email chain before your speech. You don’t get to start spreading as a way to stop your opponent from understanding you, If I can't understand your speech, or I don't have your case in front of me, I can't flow it.
Include me on any email chain: wrice2327@gmail.com

CONGRESS

I love congress.
I want to see clash, bring up points that your fellow representatives have brought up. Congress is not a forensics event, so we need to be debating, not acting.
While it isn’t a forensics event, speaking is important. You need to be organized and passionate about what you’re saying
Do not speak for the sake of speaking. It is painfully obvious if your speech is a filler fest with no original content or clash. These speeches will not get you very far and will hurt your chances with me.
It’s really easy to be rude or act superior in congress. Don’t.

Ebony Jade Robertson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 8, 2021 at 10:43 AM EDT

EJ Robertson (She / Her)

Cabot High School

I have been in the Cabot Debate program for 3 years now. I have competed in Congress, Extemp., BQ, World Schools, and PF.

TL;DR

Tech over Truth

Articulate well, moderate speed. I won't flow what I don't understand.

Make it interesting, I like a lot of clash

Line-by-line rebuttals

Make sure to be confident in your speaking and have fun!

Public Forum

A really good speaker is usually what sets one side apart from the other, so make sure to be confident and articulate well. Framework is usually neglected, but I feel that’s one of the most important aspects of weighing the round. I like unique arguments, but make sure that they have solid reasoning. Clear road maps are important, and a line-by-line on the rebuttals make it a lot easier for me to flow and evaluate the round. Make sure to be respectful, don’t say anything that’s racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that shouldn’t really be part of debate. Clash also makes the debate more interesting, and it makes it easier to see which arguments are conceded to or dropped. Don’t make any new arguments during final focus, as it makes it difficult for the opponent to respond. Weighing is important because it tells me how to evaluate which side won. I also enjoy impact debates, but don't focus on it too much / go off topic because of it. Give enough time to rebuild or crystalize all arguments, don't spend too much time on one and neglect the others.

Lincoln Douglas

Again, speaking is VERY important, so make sure to speak clearly and confidently. Framework / Value and Criterion are extremely important, as they show me how to evaluate which side I give the win to at the end of the day. I like unique arguments that really challenge the other side. I like impact debates, just don't focus on them too much. Do a line-by-line rebuttal, because it makes it easier to flow. Make sure to be respectful and don’t say anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Congress

Quality > quantity. Make sure to be confident, remember that you’re talking to your fellow delegates, not the judges. Road map should be clear so that I know where to flow on the ballots. Make sure your arguments have good impacts, and going a little over time is better than going under imo. Questioning period is important to reinforce or build up arguments, so make sure to answer questions with substantial arguments. PO should know how to do their jobs, keep time, and use precedence and recency to call delegates. Make sure to be respectful during the debates and have fun.

Ben Saddler Hire 8 rounds

Ethan Leo Schneider Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 5:51 PM EDT

Contact me:

schnee1@cps.k12.ar.us

LD:

For LD I enjoy seeing a framework debate and I enjoy yall trying to make me see the round through your “lenses”. Your framework should make sense for the case that you are making to me and you should bring up your framework throughout the entire debate if you are going for a framework debate. If you manage to convince me AND point out to me during a speech that your opponent dropped the framework then there is a good chance you will win the round (as long as it is a framework debate between the both of you and not just one of you). Although framework is a big part you should also try and still create clashes with the opponent's argument and if possible use it to your frameworks advantage.

Definition Debate For LD:

I can also get along with a definition debate as long as it makes sense and it is a topic that heavily relies on definitions (i.e. Is Civil Disobedience in a Democracy Morally justified?). In a definition debate I would still like to see clashes with the opponent's argument and I would still like to see defense for your case. Make sure you don’t get wound up in one thing because if you concede to points and your opponent mentions it I don’t care how good your definitions are I have to vote your opponent up.

Progressive debaters:

I am fine with a progressive debate as long as you make it make sense to me. I don’t want to be told a case that makes absolutely no sense and a case that your opponent can’t even defend against. If you give your speeches on a case that you randomly made I see it as unfair towards the other opponent and you will end up losing the round. Just don’t be too radical if you are going to be progressive and make sure the case is understandable.

P.s. to everybody

BE RESPECTFUL AT ALL TIMES

Congress:

Make sure you speak with confidence and you don’t fidget much. Make sure to list your sources in your speech and make sure that they are credible as well (you don’t want to list PETA as a source). This is a very heavy public speaking event and I understand nerves but don’t let them show. During the questioning period be respectful and don’t cut the other person off. Also during questioning don’t beat around the bush unless it is leading to something. Be polite while others are speaking and if you are going to talk make sure it is barely a whisper if I hear anyone besides the speaker I will ask that yall be quiet or stop talking in general. The PO should know what they’re doing and make sure to keep things fair. All in all be a good speaker and it doesn’t matter how many speeches you gave because quality over quantity.

Dylan Sexton Hire 8 rounds

Rayan Shuja Hire 8 rounds None

Christina Momoko Smith Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.

When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.

When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.

I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.

IPDA

On the collegiate level, I mostly focus on IPDA, so IPDA is an expertise of mine. My paradigm for IPDA really reflects what I look for in both Congress and PF. So just read below.

If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.

When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.

Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.

Congress

There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.

Jameson Tankersley Hire 8 rounds None

Jade Lisette Vasquez Hire 8 rounds None

Madison Wyatt Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

ACTAA Junior High Invitational November

2020 — NSDA Campus, AR/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges