2021 — Lindale (Online), TX/US
Congressional Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
For debate: Please don't spread and read your contentions nice and clearly. I am looking for a line-by-line rebuttal and up-to-date evidence with appropriate statistics.
University of Texas at Austin '23 (Business Honors & Accounting) - he/him
email for evidence/further inquiry: email@example.com
Policy Debate Paradigm:
I am a stock issues judge. I do not solely base my ballot on these issues but they are very important to me.
Please speak clearly. If I cannot understand you, I am less likely to flow your arguments. For this reason, I do not really enjoy spreading, but if you feel the need..go for it/ I won't mark off on the validity of arguments for this only speaker points.
I am generally laid back about the types of arguments ran during a round, however, I am less likely to vote on kritiks and theory arguments.
Please stay professional, I will not tolerate personal attacks of any kind. There is never a reason to be blatantly rude in a debate round.
Most importantly have fun and learn something!
I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.
General info for all debate—
1) no speed - this is a communication event
2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.
4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.
LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.
CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.
I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.
I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.
Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.
I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.
If you have questions, please feel free to ask.
(Full Update - March 2021)
*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.
**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.
Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and have been judging since graduating in 2017 - I currently judge in/around Austin, primarily.
If you are using an email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.
Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between flows, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.
Philosophy (all events):
Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.
Speaker Points (all events):
I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.
Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):
1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.
2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.
3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how they function in the round.
I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.
One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.
PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky.
Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!
If emailing about a specific round, let me know the tournament, round, your name, and what the 2NR was (it helps me remember more about the debate/find any docs I have saved).
I vote off of structure, analytics, and impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Clash is very important, so highlight on that.
Make sure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right, just persuade me why I should care and vote for you.
Always give “voters”, or reasons as to why you think you won the debate, just provide reasonable points as to why along with them.
I’m great with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, just don’t go overboard to where you do too much that you can't keep up.
I have a background in both tradition and progressive LD, and PF is very common where I am from. If I am judging policy, I can keep up and understand the actions of the round, but I in no way enjoy being in a policy round.
Hi, y'all! My name is Rachel and I competed for Salado High School for four years, The University of Texas Speech Team for four years, and am currently a first year law student at Texas Law.
I was primarily and LP'er (limited preparation fan -- extemp and impromptu) and PA'er (public address superfan) during college. I competed in Congress during high school and served as the Congress Curriculum Director for The University of Texas National Institute in Forensics after graduating in 2019. Although I never competed in interp, thanks to the Texas Speech Team (and living with a DI national champion), I have watched many interp performances and know what does and does not work.
First rule of extemp: answer the question! If you don't read the question carefully, odds are you will not answer what the question is looking for.
Excellent sourcing is a must. I do not look favorably upon CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.
I look for a solid substructure within the speech. The speech should flow easily and be coherent to even non-speech judges.
I am not a fan of the grace period. During the world of online speech, you may time yourself.
I want a solid structure to the speech. If I cannot follow the path you are trying to lead me down, I am not going to look favorably upon the speech. This means you MUST preview in your introduction.
Transitions between main points are also essential.
For OO, the solutions need to be tangible and something that I, as an audience member, can do. If the solutions are abstract and not something I can accomplish -- you are not completely fulfilling your role as an orator.
For INFO: the implications are the heart of the speech. Your implications must encourage me to examine the speech through a lens I would not have otherwise considered. I do not want cookie cutter implications. Most of my comments will likely be placed here.
I will flow your speech and point out any holes that may exist for me.
I do not pay attention to delivery as much as I do the meat of the speech. However, I would love to see well intentioned delivery.
Preview in your introduction.
You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?
The only time I will excuse no clash in a speech is if you are the author/sponsor or the first neg.
You will not be rewarded for re-hash.
To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.
Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.
I will mostly focus on your argument to make sure it's clear! Most of the comments you get from me will likely be about the structure of the introduction.
I jokingly say this when students ask for paradigms but I super mean it: I don't have PF paradigm because most of the time y'all don't listen to it. If I directly tell you my paradigm and you clearly flout it, I will consider this means to dock speaker points. If there's one thing I can give you here: don't be abusive. If you are abusive, I will automatically drop you.
Thanks and hook 'em!
My paradigm is going to be pretty simple, I want good arguments to be made. I am not looking for you to try and make extremely complex arguments that are going to confuse the rest of the room in order to escape any good questions being asked during the questioning period. As Don Draper once said, "Make it simple, yet significant." The more understandable and well thought out your argument is, the higher points you will land, and therefore most likely higher in the room. Please do not drag on a speech, and be confident when you speak!
CX: Policy, not a huge fan of K’s. Don't spread unless comprehendible
I believe Speech & Debate, in all forms, is primarily a communication sport. The two greatest takeaways from your time here into your future life will be having learned how to reason out an issue, and how to present your arguments in a clear and organized way.
Because of this, the most important part of my paradigm is how much I HATE speed/spread debate. If I can't understand what you're saying, it's as if you never said it so far as my ballot is concerned. Just talk to me! Tell me what you're thinking! Give me an argument to follow along with, and try not to sound like the end of a medicine commercial.
I also value professionalism a great deal. You don't have to be stiff and formal at all times, but I dislike the use of casual language in speeches ("Dude," "man," etc), and I HATE the use of swearing, personal attacks, and interruptions. Part of the value of Speech & Debate is fostering productive conversations between people who disagree -- and in these divisive times, the more we can listen to and respect each other, the better.
As far as my paradigm in CX/Policy Debate, I am an old-fashioned stock issues judge. In the absence of that, I will generally default to a policy-maker standpoint. I very much appreciate a good wrap-up at the end, in either of those formats.
As far as specific arguments/lines in CX/Policy Debate, I only have a few particulars.
I categorically reject the argument that no new arguments should be allowed in the 2NC. That is the negative's right under the format and rules, and has been for 50 years.
I tend to have a very high threshold for Topicality. Generally speaking, unless a 1AC is clearly unreasonable and outside of the topic area, I probably won't give a Neg ballot on that basis. If you're making the argument for strategic reasons I get that, but I probably won't vote on that basis unless the 1AC is pretty egregious.
Likewise, I tend not to buy most arguments that lead to "the end of the world." In all of recorded history, literally nothing has ever led to humanity's extinction. The matter at hand in the round probably won't either, and overstating your argument so massively is rhetorically blustery.
Finally, as a stock issues/policy judge, I HATE kritikal theory, of any type from any side. Noone wants weird, pseudo-philosophical deconstructions of society. That's what LD is for.
I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.
I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) Please keep cameras on during the round, muting microphones is fine. I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.
LD - Create clash with values and criterion. Please do not allow speed to hinder your communication. Signpost and present a roadmap to help the flow of the argument.
I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!