Paradigm Updated: 12/17/2020

Name:

Kovan Barzani

Background:

Debated LD/PF at Liberty HS in Frisco, Texas. SMU ‘17 (Economics, Public Policy, Business Management). I am open to judging LD, PF, Extemp, and can flex into Policy.

Email:

BarzaniKovan@Gmail.com

Paradigm:

I reserve the right to vote someone down for discriminatory language or arguments. Debaters hold different backgrounds and come from varying communities, some of which are heavily marginalized. Building an inclusive community starts with participants, so I expect you to be courteous to your opponent.

LD is a Value/Criterion centered debate. As a result, I value the top of the framework the most. You can win every contention or run an Off-Neg but failure to link to the winning framework will cost you the round. That does not mean you need to contest or win the V/C debate. Rather, just link into the winning framework. With that said, I am open to Ks, but please link them clearly and be explicit in the relationship between premises. I can follow Theory, but please present them clearly. This means list out your rule, why it matters, the violation, the impact of the violation, standards, and reason to vote. I am not a fan of rushed T-Shells. They are high impact arguments, and as result, they should be thorough. If your opponent presents a poorly warranted or poorly linked Theory argument, you don't have to do much to convince me to ignore it. If you present a Theory argument, please make sure to clearly state why the standards matter. Do NOT run a laundry list of standards. Link CLEARLY to the violation, and BE clear in your language.

At a high level, please explicitly extend arguments and crystalize. Close out your NR/2AR with some form of weighing, why you generate more offense, or some form of impact analysis that gives me a clear reason to vote for you. You can go through the whole round winning but not get my vote if you do not crystalize clearly.

Style:

While I can understand spreading, I do not prefer it (especially in a digital environment). I would say my cap is closer to ~300 WPM. I cannot flow effectively at the current speed of the national circuit so please annunciate, slow down at key premises, and be explicit with your cards. I know a lot goes into case work and speed may be the only way to do justice to your preparation. If that is the case, be prepared to be courteous to both me and your opponent by having materials accessible. I will interject if necessary.

I prefer to have webcams on for an online debate. If this is not an option for you, let me know. I will not dock off for any pets jumping on tables, siblings running around, etc. If there are any technical issue, escalate them immediately. We can work around internet cutting out, mic messing up, or laptop issues within reason.

Additional Information:

I graduated from Southern Methodist University in 2017 as a triple major. I work in financial services and have a background in monetary policy. Furthermore, I am well read on Middle Eastern affairs and refugee issues. If you have questions on literature for these topics, feel free to bring it up after the round.

I will not judge for pay, only as a volunteer. I aim to be as accessible as possible to debaters, so feel free to email me after the round with any questions. I take fairly meticulous notes but please reach out at most 1 week after the tournament.

Games player judge - I view debate as a game. I look at the debate as a game board and the flow as an offensive and defensive structure. Strategy is something I value and tend to look for its usage throughout the debate.

I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I would prefer that if you want to visit spreading, to provide a copy of your case. I also evaluate on speaking ability. I listen for fluid speech and professional mannerisms. Vocabulary plays a part here.

I like hearing cited sources when making claims.

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 25 - 28. I am unexperienced in "flow" debate.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

LD Parent lay judge. You can speak at a good pace but no spreading please. Providing clear voters will always get you extra points. More progressive debate structures (Ks, conterplans ....) - Do it at your own risk!

None. Good with all arguments and speed.

I am a lay parent judge. Go slow and make your arguments clear, concise, and compelling.

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed. Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else!

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you.

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round! Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile ????!

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Experienced in PF, LD, extemp, and all speech events.

Spreading

I’m good with speed but if I have to say clear more than 3 times I will write it down.

Types of debates/Kritiks

I accept K’s and will flow any debate as long as it’s easy to follow.

Guests

I'm okay with a friend watching the round as long as the opponent is as well.

Timing

Keep time for yourselves, flex prep is okay as long as everyone in the debate agrees.

Disclosing

Depends on the round. I will let you know by the end of the debate if I'm disclosing or not.

Overall

Be respectful to everyone in the room and enjoy the tourney!

I graduated Plano East Senior High School in 2019, and now attend the University of Texas at Austin as a Supply Chain major and MIS minor. My email is ameera7k@gmail.com.

I primarily competed in LD for 4 years, but have also done Extemp, PF, and World Schools. I qualified for TFA State in LD my sophomore to senior year and broke into outrounds in almost every tournament I attended. I began by learning traditional-style debate but by my senior year I ran almost exclusively policy-style arguments.

I'm fine with whatever you run, so long as it isn't offensive and you can do it well. Go as fast as you want, just flash your case beforehand.

Weigh between your arguments, extend, and collapse effectively.

Speaks- The clearer and more concise, the higher your speaks will be. I've given mostly 28/29's thus far, but I generally give 29.5-27 unless you're extraordinary or extraordinarily offensive.

Cross Ex- CX is binding. Use this time to your benefit- get concessions, point out how fallacious their argument sounds- there's a lot you can do during CX other than just getting them to reread their case to you.

K- I considered myself a K debater throughout high school, so I'm familiar with most common critical lit. If your arguments become dense, I do expect more explanation.

Theory/T- I default competing interps, no rvi's, and drop the arg if there's no other justification. Not a fan of super frivolous theory and tricks but i'll still evaluate it.

LARP- Please make sure your link story makes sense- I'm more likely to buy non-uniqueness args against you if your link chain is weak.

Phil- Warrant your arguments- I will not assume to understand the nuances of your ethical framework going in.

I don't want to intervene but I will if the debate space becomes unsafe for anyone. Have fun in your round and good luck debating!

TLDR; Put jkwon0301@gmail.com on email chain, I will usually vote for the better technical debaters, and BE CLEAR.

Me -

policy debate for 4 years as a 2N at Greenhill

primarily went for "policy" strategies but a very open listener

new to the resolution

Topicality -

flesh out the impact debate

give caselists, examples of aff/neg ground lost, etc.

Counterplan -

give detailed solvency explanations

aff should ask what's kickable early

if you want judge kick put it in the block

tricky/well-thought-out cps (ex. advantage cps using 1AC evidence, smart pics) will get more fiat/theory leeway and more speaker points

Process Counterplan -

perm + theory as a justification 2ARs are infinitely better than theory 2ARs

Disadvantage -

politics DAs are awesome!!!

make turns case arguments specific

please compare evidence

Kritik -

if the framework debate is perfectly debated by both sides, I'm gonna weigh the aff

K tricks are lame so don't drop them

ESPECIALLY for the K: explanation > evidence

T-USFG -

fairness makes sense to me as long as debate is a game

explicit (and early) impact calculus is important

K-Affs-

I'm not the best for these

Other -

no need to read rehighlightings

write my decision at the top of the 2NR/2AR and please clean up unresolved issues

EMAIL CHAIN

jonathanhleespeechdocs@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

debate is a game (that means you all are gamers). like any competitive game, the best debates will be one with lots of healthy interaction. this means while reading evidence/pre-written blocks may be important, you should never sacrifice clash by excluding line by line, weighing, spinning args, etc.

The only rules to debate are the speech times. Run whatever you want!

Do not be mean to your competitors or your teammates.

I probably have not done research on the topic so explain topic specific shorthand and jargon.

Tech>Truth.

DEFAULTS

-For LD, I default to Competing interps, no rvis, comparative worlds, epistemic certainty, drop the argument, permissibility flows aff, presumption flows neg until neg abandons squo.

-For PF- "Tab." I have a PF paradigm below for more details.

FLOWING: Slow down on Tags, Authors, Theory, spikes, things you REALLY want to me to know. I also think that analytics that were pre-written should be sent in the doc especially if you like to read them super fast. I flow cx.

DETAILED VERSION

Hi! I'm Jonathan and I did 3 years of LD and dabbled in PFD and Congress every once in awhile.

General rule of thumb: have a strategic game plan going into round and the ability to adjust that game plan accordingly as the debate goes on. while line by line matters, i think that your overall macro strategy to secure the ballot is the most important thing in debate rounds. thus, speaker points will be based on AND ONLY on how optimal, intelligent, creative your strategy is and how well you execute it. The only exception is that if you are extremely mean or rude in round for some reason expect your speaks to drop.

Arguments that been sufficiently explained by one side (i.e good claim, warrant, impact) and are dropped by the opponent are 100% true.

E V I D E N C E: While the debate should be 100% what the debaters say, I will be reading all the evidence read in a round to ensure that there is no misreading of the arguments presented in front of me. Even if you think something says "A", if it undoubtedly says "B and not A" then I will view it as suspect and depending on the situation will give more leeway to negative arguments against the specific misread card or, in egregious cases, disregard it entirely.

(1)Theory/Procedurals/T

non-traditional cases: perfectly valid approaches to the game, although I think that these affs should be grounded in the topic somewhat and have a specific advocacy (does not have to be normal means/state).

Framework: fw interps are the models of debate that determine how to play the game in and out of round. because you are presenting different styles to the game, you should focus on pitching it to me by winning some external impact, weighing, garnering offences from DAs to competing models, etc. negative teams should be careful in explaining why limits is key towards your external impact and explain in detail why that external impact is important in order to play around the impact turn arguments as well as explaining, in context of course, why the affirmative model probably doesn't get any of the benefits provided by limits. Since everyone is probably biased- I'll admit I probably slightly lean towards FW.

Theory: I default competing interps. In-round abuse will always make your theory arguments better, but I understand that's not always possible. In this case a well-written story of potential abuse might be enough for me to vote on the shell. Impact something to Fairness, education, advocacy skills, or something. Having the theory shell be DTD because X W/O an impact makes it hard for me to vote for the shell.

Topicality: Pretty standard here, go for it because it's an aff obligation that must be met. I don't think T should be an RVI generally and here contextual extrapolation on how a particular interpretation of words of the resolution changes models of debate for better or for worse. So in other words, give me impact comparison like you would in regular theory debates in general. If you go for T in the 2NR though be ready to spend a LOT of time on it.

(2) LD Stuff

LD Framework/Value&VC debate: PLEASE don't get into debates that resemble "Justice is a prereq to morality/morality is a prereq to justice." In my opinion, the value/value criterion structure isn't really the best way to understand/present ethical theories and you should just focus on giving me a standard to weigh on rather than extending single word that in 99% of LD rounds will never be important. To clarify you dont HAVE to present a normative ethical theory in front of me (your weighing mechanism can draw from other philosophical/academic disciplines other than ethics), just dont be surprised if you lose the framework debate when you extended a value without it being contextualized by some actual philosophy that youre reading. In other words, focus on your WHOLE FRAMEWORK position and its weighing mechanism instead of extending a word that by itself means nothing to me.

LD "Tricks": Go for them. Triggers should be in the 1AR, dont try to cheat out a new impact in the 2AR. If you want to blow up a blip in the 1AR you better hope i see it (send it in the doc or slow down).

LD Epistemic Modesty/Epistemic certainty (Model Hedging/Moral Confidence): I default to Epistemic certainty/Moral Confidence. This basically means that fw is super important to determine which impacts are largest in the round. FOR EXAMPLE, even if a util case is winning risk of offence of some huge impact, if the opposing debater wins that Kantian ethics is true and is only MARGINALLY losing the case debate, i disregard the util offence and vote for kant. However, db8rs must still win that a course of action or squo is supporting their fw meaning that if an aff wins fw but concedes/loses sufficient case defense, i will vote negative as they lose their impact despite it being the biggest in round. mind you this is just a default, if you want me to prioritize case more- just say epistemic modesty good.

LD Truth-testing: Truth-Testing does NOT mean that implementation of the plan is excluded when weighing the aff. That being said, Truth-testing can and, let's be real here, usually sets up an affirmative burden that excludes fiating a plan (thats why it's strategic lol). When this happens, opposing debaters should read and defend "comparative worlds good" as a framing issue before reading DAs,CPs, or any arg with post-fiat implications. Or they can read truth-testing flows their side/read a kritik/theory. The reason why i'm explaining this here is that i've seen too many debates where people just read typical off case positions against affs that clearly do not defend aff post-fiat. do not make this mistake.

(3)(LARP debate)

DAs/CPs/Case debate: Case debate is important no matter what kind of strategy you are going for so please do not forget it. Remember you can always generate offence from the aff case or weaken their offence to make your arguments more compelling to vote on. For those going for the more plan oriented approach to their strategy, having arguments that are as specific to the aff is obviously important and you should be able to ready to explain your link chain story and how the argument, assuming you win it (which you should try to), changes the round in your favor.

cp theory defaults

-neg gets PICs

-condo is good

-multiple worlds good

-int fiat, 50 state fiat, some random condition cp, consult, delay cps all without solvency advocates are probably bad.

(4) Kritiks

K: While explaining the theory of power is important via long overviews, always remember that contextual line by line analysis and interaction with the K with the plan or K aff will make your argument stronger. By default, I think that the aff should get to weigh the 1AC vs the K, so negative teams should try and pitch a FW that precludes that if possible but also I think that well executed K teams can win the K despite having the Aff being able to have the aff.

-If you can generate Uniqueness you can kick the alt

-Permutations to K should be detailed in explanation. This means just saying "perm do both net benefit is the aff" is ok but not quite the best way to pitch it to a judge. Permutations should be accompanied by explanations regarding what will happen in the world of the aff if the alternative is incorporated by the permutation. Basically, you should extrapolate how the permutation will work in real time with the plan while simultaneously addressing concerns of potential DA's to the perm by the negative team's K. reminder that permutations are usually defensive arguments even in their best form, and you REALLY NEED to weigh the case and have the AFF in order to win the entire round with the perm.

(5)PF Debate Paradigm

Most rounds dont have FW and, while I don't really have a say in the PF World, I really think debaters should state and defend a weighing mechanism. Otherwise, I just default to which ever world (pro or con) produces the best consequences (so basically utilitarianism) and if thats not applicable, whoever wins their arguments under an offence/defense paradigm.

Run literally whatever, i'll vote on the flow. THAT BEING SAID, don't feel pressured to run policy/LD positions because that's what I am familiar with. Don't overadapt to me if you aren't comfortable running these positions. I honestly do not mind a normal PF debate. If it helps, just treat me like your average lay judge.

Theory: Theory should be done in the same manner it is done in policy/LD and I will evaluate like I do when judging those debate events. Look at my theory defaults for above or email me if you have any questions on how I feel about debate theory. If you can, try to refrain from using theory against people who clearly don't know what it is. Unlike CX or LD theory is not expected and some people will never have to learn it so using it for a cheap win may not be very interesting for you or myself.

I won't auto down plans/CPs: I feel like a lot of times PFers run plans/CPs anyways and just frame them without using debate terminology (ex: voting pro means you dont do an alternative or there is an opportunity cost with a better alternative) so I think running them is perfectly fine. Also I am unsure of how to evaluate arguments along the lines of "vote them down because NSDA rules said so." It's hard for me to evaluate a pure appeal to authority by itself under an offence/defense paradigm so if you want to make this argument just go for a plans bad theory shell. What this means is that you can run plans and counterplans and if you want to say thats cheating, run a theory shell on why plans/counterplans are cheating.

Paraphrasing is almost always silly and bad for any technical debate. Since this is just my opinion, I wont auto-down you or give you lower speaker points solely because you read a case with paraphrased text but I think it would be better if you just cut cards and read them- save the paraphrased cases for lay rounds. if you are reading this like 10 minutes before round and you only have paraphrased evidence don't sweat it, but against judges that do not mind speed, I would prefer if you read evidence in carded format.

No RVIs by default. I will admit I think getting one will be easier in PFD than in other debate formats given time constraints.

You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.

Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.

I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)

Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.

Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE.

Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.

Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.

Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.

Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.

I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg!

Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.

I am a 5th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.

Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).

I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.

If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.

Colleyville Heritage High School 2014

Affirmatives should be topical or related to the topic at the very least. I prioritize technical concessions over truth. Dropped arguments stay true throughout entire debate. Speaker points generally range between 28.5-29.5.

Counterplans: CPs should be functionally and textually competitive. I like case-specific CPs (especially PICs), not huge fan of consult / conditions CPs. I will kick the CP and evaluate the status quo on its own unless told not to by the aff.

Disadvantages: Absolute defense is possible.

Kritiks: I ran mostly policy arguments so explanation is essential. I usually default to weighing the aff on framework. Negatives should explain what the alternative does. Affs should impact turn as opposed to link turn if more strategic option. Cap good, hegemony good are arguments and need to be answered.

Theory: I usually reject arguments and not teams unless dropped / seriously mishandled. Conditional advocacies good.

Topicality: I usually default to competing interpretations but there are good reasons to prefer reasonability. Topicality not reverse voting issue.

More context:

Kelly Cody: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=11629

Lydia Lee: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=28408

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

Hi, I have judged at national-level tournaments in PF and LD.

All events: be inclusive and KIND :)

I like good slow arguments and prefer speakers give clear instructions and organizations.

I will listen to all argumentations but please be reasonable...

I have taken the Cultural Competency course and other certifications for NSDA.

ASK BEFORE ROUND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

Baylor '23 | Mansfield Legacy '19

Hi, my name is Katlin!! I debated policy all 4 years in HS, and I'm currently a policy debater for Baylor. And yes, I'd like to be put on the e-mail chain :) katlinmnguyen@gmail.com

Don't use language that's racist, homophobic, etc. or derogatory terms. I understand that debate does come with aggression at some points, but never be condescending to your partner or opponents. That's unnecessary and will result in low speaks. Debate is a learning space, have fun with it. Online debate also a lil different, but I'll just let you know I flow on paper, so speed is fine; just be clear on your tags and slow down a bit for analytics.

Affs: I'm pretty lenient on types of affs you can run, whether that be policy or K affs. To be more specific, K affs with a relation to the topic can have an easier time on the FW debate, but if your aff doesn't do that, then just give me reasons why it functions well in the debate space.

DA's/CP's: Just prove why the CP is competitive and show me the net benefits. Have clear, valid links with the disad. Be sure to do impact framing here as well and explicitly give me reasons why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

Kritiks: I understand the way they function and have a general idea of what most of them are, but don't assume I know everything about your literature base. You're more than welcome to ask me about my knowledge of a specific K before the round starts, and I'll be happy to tell you my position with it. Be clear with your in-round application and link and alt explanation. If you're running a K on the neg against a policy aff, you'll win by either impact turning the education the aff introduces or just proving the plan makes xyz worse, which outweighs and turns the aff.

T/FW: For T, I typically default on competing interps, but can def be persuaded otherwise. I think that fairness is an internal link to education/clash/other FW impacts, but can def be down to vote for it if the aff does nothing, in which a TVA would be strong here as well. If running FW against a K aff, I'd like both team to explain to me why their model of debate is best for the space and why your opponent's is worse.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round as well if I didn't answer them here. Good luck and have fun debating!

I am a traditional LD and PF judge.

Persuasion is necessary. Moderate spreading is okay.

If you make a non-topical argument, I will not evaluate it.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Hello Competitors, Coaches, and Tournament Directors,

I hold a Master's in Communication from Wichita State University. I have been coaching speech and debate since 2002 at the high school and college levels. I am presently coaching for Trinity High School in Euless, Texas.

General Preferences for all forms of Debate: 

*Know Your Case-Don't read me something you do not understand.  I can usually tell pretty fast.  Purchased cases GREATLY  annoy me.  I am on the circuit and I usually can spot them within the second or third week in a season if not the first tournament out..  Use them as a reference if you want but do your own writing/work either individually or as a school team.

*Know Your Cards-Understand the evidence you are using.  How does it matter?  What is the context in which that evidence was derived,   Know it well enough for it stand up under cross-examination/questioning.   

*Don't play games. I am only interested in theory if something in the round is really serious enough to provoke a theory argument. Don't try to win by confusing your opponent or throwing so much out there that they simply can't flow your case.  (There is a bit more leeway in policy for this but your case still must stand on its own merits and not just be built to be hard to flow).  

*Keep spreading to Policy/CX Debate - I can tell pretty quickly, especially during CX and rebuttal rounds, if you really understand what you are putting forward.  In LD, I much prefer fewer cards that are understood well to a large quantity of evidence that you barely understand or that is taken out of context. Some cases are won and lost in the CX potion of the round because one opponent is able to demonstrate that the other either doesn't understand their evidence or that they are using cards out of context. 

*Spreading in ALL other events:  I do not mind a slightly faster than average rate of speech.  However, your case should be able to be understood clearly to anyone listening to you.   If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will stop flowing.  I will also dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down.  I believe that it is important to read your audience and your judge and to maintain some level of eye contact.  For that reason, I do not believe that it is up to me to stop you and tell you to slow down.  When is it spreading?  IMO, you are going too fast if you are having to gasp for air drastically to keep up your speaking rate if you sound like an auctioneer or the side effects voiceover on prescription drug advertisement. 

*I welcome both traditional and progressive case writing.  However, be logical and realistic in the arguments you raise.  Extinction impacts should account for time frames for example.  Ks , DAs,  PERMS and CPs are welcome.  Make them make sense.. I prefer impacts that are realistic over ones that exaggerate and/or over-catastrophize. Time frame usually factors into this directly. (I. E., climate change-based extinction impacts are not going to occur in the next five years so they would not outweigh an urgent matter that has a smaller impact but in a more immediate time frame).  

*Listen and Respond to the arguments that are made in rounds.  If you can clearly respond to your opponent with logic and argumentation based on what they are saying in round and not simply with what you have come within your constructive arguments, I will pay careful attention to your arguments. 

How I Typically Weigh:   Framework > Evidence > Impact  *imho solvency potentially factors in at all of these levels)

Specific Debate Style Preferences

SC:  Bring on those well-prepared speeches but also make sure you are listening specifically and responding in round to what is happening.  Extemporaneous speeches are very well received by me when they are responsive to the moment. I much prefer you SPEAK to me rather than READ to me.  There is a difference between congressional/diplomatic/legislative debate speaking and case writing for other clash events.  Show diplomacy, show interest in the round, and embrace those who differ from you in their opinions with a sense of inquiry and curiosity.  Passion and aggression are two different things.  Make sure you are treating your opponents with respect and dignity.   We model what we hope to see in real life.  The goal is not see manipulative parliamentary techniques and the minimalization of others.  It is to see solid, in depth dialogue that seeks to resolve real issues facing the people you represent. Senators and Representatives who model this well will rank highly with me. 

LD Specifics - I appreciate the connection that LD makes between current issues and the values that drive them. It is very important to me that competitors really understand their own cases well. As this is LD and not CX, make sure all of your arguments link clearly to your value.

Progressive, policy-driven arguments are welcome, provided the links to the value and framework are very clear in the case presentation.

I am well versed in a variety of philosophies including post-structuralism. I expect your case to line up with your theoretical framework. The clash of values is what makes LD unique. Progressive cases are fine but make the links clear to your value and framework.

For LD, I strongly prefer cases to take a little and plant it well.  I can and will keep up with a slightly rapid speech rate but I have a very low tolerance for spreading in this event. (I believe it has a time and place in CX/Policy).   My personal opinion is that the main reason that competitors spread in LD is out of a lack of the ability/self-discipline to consolidate their cases into the time frame given or in an attempt to simply overwhelm their opponent. My opinion is that self-disciplined, well-researched competitors should win on the value of their arguments and not on these tactics.

If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will stop flowing.  I will also dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down.  it is not up to me to stop you and tell you to slow down.  IMO, you are going too fast if you are having to gasp for air drastically to keep up your speaking rate if you sound like an auctioneer, and if you can not look up and make eye contact enough that you are able to read your audience. 

Unless you are going to maintain a very conversational pace,  I do recommend sharing your case with your opponent and judge.

In LD specifically, I give higher speaker points to debaters who make an effort to use solid elocution skills (varied tone, enunciation, volume, eye contact, etc.) Your arguments do not matter if you can not make them in a manner that they can be heard and understood by an audience.

WSD:  In general my LD paradigm would apply here.  Value/Criterion is less important than it is in LD but a solid cohesive case that is tied to a consistent framework or "World" is important.    These events, in particular, were designed to reach a broader debate audience. Solid speaker skills matter. Speaker points obviously rate higher in WSD as that is how the event is scored and judged.  

BQ:  This event gives you considerable freedom and leeway to combine aspects of other events in designing your argument.  Employ the added layers of logic and reasoning that tie into philosophy, theology, and psychology as the topics require in this event. I am looking for cohesive cases that make sense and provoke deeper layers of thought and intellectual reasoning. 

CX/Policy:  I do not judge this event as often but I am willing to do so when needed.  

I am far more lenient with policy debaters on rate of speech (spreading actually belongs in this event IMHO).  I believe this is the event where developing new ideas and policies creatively can and should be a major focus.  I am interested in seeing new ideas about the topic emerge and in hearing how your evidence links to them.  

Make Disads/Impacts realistic.  The quantity of evidence must balance with the quality of evidence and make sure you understand your evidence.  

I will entertain theory arguments went they are truly necessary and not a gimmick to go off-topic.

I get annoyed by "store-bought cases"  Use them as a reference but bring something you or your team worked on and it will likely be favored over the case I have heard several times already from several schools because they also purchased it from the same place you did. 

Timeframe factors in for me greatly when considering Impacts and Disads.  Make your arguments realistic.  Not every single policy leads us to an extinction impact. 

Individual Events:  

Oratory: I am looking for speeches that bring forward your unique voice and ideas. Your story, your ideas, and your thoughts will connect to those who have inspired you but what I am looking for most is for you to inspire me. My paradigm here is less specific because this event allows you to be yourself more than any other event. That is what I am looking for. I want to see you. I want to see your thoughts, hear about your hopes, and get a glimpse of the world as you see it and/or as you would like for it to be. You do You!!! I want to see you shine!

Extemp: Be aware of current events and know the research that you chose to quote well. I stay informed on most of these events as a coach. I am going to rate someone higher if they use a few select pieces of research well and combine them into a very thoughtful and articulate presentation. I don't need to see a ridiculous number of sources, I need to see you thinking about your topic and delivering your speech confidently. Do not make up research. I will usually figure that out fast. I coach this.

Poetry/Prose, HI/DI, Duet/Duo, Program of Interp:  I love the impact that we can make with narrative presentations and I enjoy these rounds tremendously. I am not someone who thinks that you should be limited by your age, gender, or race in what selections you chose. I think Interp gives us the freedom to play with some of these ideas in ways that we might not be able to on film or in theatre. I love blended/woven pieces because I like to see what you put together. Your cuttings should tell a clear story with a beginning and middle and end. Your characters should be believable. If you are working with gender, age or race find a way to do create those characters with authenticity and respect. Act but do not overact. Make your characterizations and voicing seem real. Don't be afraid to use silence. Don't scream/shout unless there is a really good motivation to do so for your character. And, most of all, please pick me for these rounds :)

When it comes to LD I look for framework arguments above contention arguments and I am fine with logical arguments. No spreading please. Higher points for addressing the issue raised by opponents from your initial position. I like good CX. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive. Not a big fan of shell case.

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

I'd like to be on the email chain: juliatothezan@gmail.com

I am a former debater from Grapevine High School and competed in LD on the local circuit of Dallas, the state and UIL levels. I qualified for TFA state both my junior and senior year. I now judge in the Dallas, Austin and sometimes San Antonio circuits.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I did both, although I debated more progressive and tend to enjoy those rounds more. You can choose to read whatever you want but know that I'll vote you down on anything I deem to be blatantly offensive, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc.

Speed: I'm fine with any speed. Don't try to spread just because your opponent is or because you think I'll be more inclined to buy your arguments; I need to be able to hear them. Slow down on any important analytics and voters. I won't yell clear.

Framework: As long as there is some standard to evaluate the round, whether it be a traditional value criterion or some sort of role of ballot/judge, I'm good. Don't just read it at the beginning of the speech and drop it throughout the round because then you are wasting my time and yours. I like rounds weighed through framework but ultimately don't care how you weigh (impact calc, framework, comparative worlds, etc.). Pre-fiat like arguments are fine.

K debate: I'm fine with it as long as you explain the lit/philosophy. That being said, don't automatically assume I know whatever K literature or philosophy you are using, so please explain it anyway. I very rarely buy "reject the aff" alts; they don't actually mean much in the round and take away from substance. I will vote on them if the aff doesn't refute it. If you're going to read a K, please make sure to find specific links. That being said, I will vote on any of this if I have to.

T/Theory: I'm okay with this too as long as I don't think you're using it specifically as a strategy because you know the opponent is not as good at T/theory debate as you are. I will vote on it if there is no adequate response from your opponent but I would prefer it only be read if there is actually abuse in the round.

DAs/CPs: I'm good with both.

---------

PF Paradigm:

Speed: See above

"Progressive" PF: I will evaluate any arguments brought up in the round. I understand PF has the tendency to be more traditional around framework and impact weighing; however, the nature of these events is that they can and do tend to run more progressive at times (I say this as a former progressive LDer). I am cool with you running Ks, DAs, CPs, etc., but I am not super comfortable with T/theory/tricks in PF because I don't think they are arguments most PFers can run comfortably. I say this as a general rule, but if you are a good T/theory PFer, by all means, run your arguments. Just know I probably can evaluate these arguments better than you could successfully run them in PF. Frivolous and not well run t/theory in PF is somehow a thing I keep seeing. I tend to grant more RVIs in PF unless the aff is proven to be clearly abusive. For specifics on progressive arguments check the LD paradigm above.

Framework: I like a framework debate. Numbering your voters helps. Don't drop your framework unless planning to collapse to the other teams' framework justification.

Links/Impacts: I vote off of impacts and links. I'm not going to make the link or impact calculus for you so make it clear in the round.

Extend: Extensions are important to PF debate offense so make sure you extend cards you want me to flow in the round. I'm not going to extend something across your speeches if you don't bring it up. I don't expect the first speaker to extend their own case in rebuttal since there's no offense on it. If something isn't extended to the last speech I'm not voting on it. This should come as a given in any debate type but I will make a point to mention it here: extending your card doesn't mean saying "extend *insert author name*" and moving on. Properly extending evidence means extending the uniqueness -> warrant -> link -> impact, otherwise I don't know why the card is brought up again. Unwarranted claims kills debate clash and education.

-------

Make sure you weigh the round, whether it be through framework, voters, or anything else. Otherwise, I don't know how to vote.

If you have any questions after round, feel free to email me.