Arkansas District Tournament
2021 — AR/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
TLDR: do what you want. I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear-put me on the email chain. Framework is important and I can vibe with progressive args. Respect your opponents or I will drop you.
LD: I am a traditional LD debater. Heavy framework, integrated into your contentions and impacts. I think framework is extremely important so if you win framework, then there’s a high possibility that you win the round. However, case debate is really important too. Turns and defense looks really good along with framework. Impacts are a big deal. If you drop impacts, then you’ll most likely lose the round. Signpost please. I’m okay with any arguments made as long as they can be supported throughout the debate. Be cordial in cross-one of my biggest pet peeves is people trying to talk over each other or be overly aggressive during cross. I’m okay with speed most of the time as long as you are clear. I will yell clear three times before I stop flowing. After the 1AC, I’d like a road map so it is not a messy flow. For the negative, I’m not a big fan on topicality unless it is argued correctly. Plans, Disads, Counterplans are cool. This happens frequently-bringing up new args or impacts in the last affirmative speech. Don’t do it because I won’t weigh it; it is unfair to the negative.
Also, any type of racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally problematic comments will result in a L. It's not tolerated in the speech and debate community.
Experience- I was a debater in High School on the Texas UIL circuit and am now on the Arkansas State University Debate Team. I have competed in LD, Congress, NPDA, and IPDA debate.
Philosophy- I look for a few things in rounds:
1. Clarity - Make it clear to me what you are arguing and how it applies to the resolution/case/etc.
2. Fulfillment of Burdens - In IPDA and LD rounds, I look to make sure that the two parties have fulfilled their burdens as a part of my decision. The burdens I observe are as follows:
a. Affirmative - You have the Burden of Proof. You must make your case and then provide either evidential or prudential evidence as to why your case is superior. Prefer no apriori warrants.
b. Negative - You have the Burden of Clash. You need to make it clear that you are attacking your opponent’s case either directly/CP/etc.
3. Remember to HAVE FUN – Debate is a game, have fun and do your best!
Speed- 9/10 Speed doesn’t bother me much. Make sure to clearly organize and slow down a tad for signposting. I want to make sure I have everything organized in my flow, so I can be as fair as possible.
Speaker Points- I award speaker points using the following rubric:
0-10: You have maybe introduced the topic and then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. I will never give this low of speaker points in a debate round.
10-15: Gave a speech. The organization wasn’t all there, and you didn’t respond to arguments clearly at all.
15-20: Gave a speech and had some organization. Clarity is lacking.
20-25: Gave a good speech with organization. Clear in your responses to your opponent’s argument.
25-30: Excellent speech. Showed a clear understanding of the topic and was very well organized. Good clarity throughout.
Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:
To start, my credentials are as follows:
-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate
-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament
-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.
-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress
With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.
Now, what does it take to win my ballot?
I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.
-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)
-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.
-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.
-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*
-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.
-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.
-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.
-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality
-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.
Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.
Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.
im a former debate student from bentonville high school and am currently attending stony brook university. i was involved in the speech and debate program for about five years.
- use of debate jargon is fine, so is speed to an extent
- if you are being racist, homophobic, sexist, or in any way bigoted…don’t expect good speaker points or to win
- the substance of your debate matters so much more to me than how good of a speaker you are
- make sure your warrants are strong
- if you drop something on the flow and your opponent points this out AND points out why this is critical they will win on that point. however, i don’t mind if you kick out of an argument if it is no longer important or has been dropped by both sides
- framework / definition debate: boring, time suck, waste of time >:(
do what you want with this information
good luck bad boys B)
if you have any questions or just wanna talk you can email me (firstname.lastname@example.org) im a nice human, i promise
< :) 3
I competed in multiple types of debate during my four years in high school. Public Forum was my specialty, with multiple appearances in state finals and state championship in Public Forum speaking. Along the way, I picked up three qualifications to NSDA nationals and another to the TOC in Kentucky.
Currently, I am in in law school and will be continue my debate skills by being on the trial team.
In undergraduate, I did college competition in IPDA debate. I have made multiple finals appearances as well as been nationally ranked in the top ten debaters in my division for the past two years.
I have also served as a parliamentarian for many high school tournaments while in college.
If you have any questions email me: email@example.com
General Debate Comments:
- Although an increased rate of speaking is the norm in the status quo, I don't want your breathing to become distracting and annoying with large intakes of air that are audible from space.
- T/Definition/Standard debate when done well and when needed will be rewarded.
- If a card becomes an issue I will call for it, please have cards ready if you foresee an issue in them.
- It is important that you are polite. Do not speak loudly to your partner while the opposing team is speaking. It it ok to pass notes, but you should not be audible to the judge or audience.
- Debate is about clash. This means that you HAVE to flow and you MUST not drop points. Organization that occurs through flowing will make sure that you clash with your opponent and do not drop key points.
- THE ONE THING THAT WILL KILL SPEAKER POINTS AND EARN AN L is if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic or disparaging to excluded groups. Please make sure your arguments do not fall into this category.
- I love theory and K debate, well done it will be rewarded. poorly done then :(
- Please do not call me judge :)
- You have to link your arguments to your V/VC (don't assume I know the link)
- Speed is fine as long as it doesn't exclude the other debater
- Ks need to be good and have the evidence to back it up to get my vote
- All General Debate Comments apply here as well. :)
- Anything that resembles a K/Plan will be voted down
- Flow is everything
- Any new arguments in the Final Focus will be thrown out and lower your speaks
- Do not assume I know the frame work link
- All General Debate Comments apply here :)
- The expectations for congress are for it to not look like any of the other debate formats. This is supposed to model real rhetoric used in actual congressional sessions.
- While your speech should have three points: intro, body, and conclusion. It should NOT sound like a debate case.
- Do not rehash arguments in the round just to get a speech in
- You should be be not only advancing your positions arguments but engaging with the opposition to persuade the chambers to vote a certain way.
- A good PO is one who does the bare minimum in controlling chambers. A GREAT PO is one who is commanding, possesses great knowledge of parli pro, and is a charismatic speaker. POs can either make or break a chamber.
Paradigm update: Harvard 21'
Chris Flowers (He/Him)
Golden State Academy
Little Rock Central
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't have a speaking rate preference.
I mostly just care that you are warranting your arguments, clashing with your opponents, and advocating for a unique reason to vote for your side.
Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.
Debate is a game, but games shape subjectivities, particularly true of debate.
Debaters should not do any of the following:
Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.
Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.
Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.
Read pessimism args from identities they don't claim.
Education > Fairness
Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here
K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.
Perf Con is a reason to vote AFF, RVI’s are probably not.
Vote for theory when there’s a clear and substantial brightline violated
Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.
Analytic > Low quality evidence
I strive to carefully consider my decision based exclusively on the arguments in the round. It's not always possible, but its my goal. I included more opinions I have about particular arguments and strategies. If you have a specific question or concern, please email or ask in-round.
Neg teams ought to attempt to engage with plan free affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo in the context of the topic. The more likely an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it for fairness. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness.
T plan text
I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff that expands the limits of the topic in a good way. I also don’t think it creates much more judge intervention that is already inevitable and comparable to evaluating competing interps. But, I will vote for competing interps if you’ve got good stuff to say that will establish a clear brightline as to what makes a definition better.
Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most comfortable theory interp for me, but unlimited conditionality is fine too, unless you cross over the line into perf con.
The threshold for me on perf con is
a. Arguments made on one flow could be extended to other parts of the flow once the original argument is dropped.
b. Positions are grossly ideologically contradictory. IE, the econ da plus cap.
If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.
Most PIC’s I’ve heard seem theoretically legit because demonstrable abuse hasn’t been proven. But if you have a clear, thesis story on CP abuse I will vote there. It’s happened before. But violations have to be clear.
I think most politics arguments are false and most econ arguments are false. However, I can detach myself from those beliefs and vote for your disad, even if it's terrible. Please be reading updated uniqueness arguments and be paying attention to what’s happening in the squo. Make your turns case analysis efficient and terminal.
Neg walks in with presumption. If both teams show up and neither team speaks I’d vote neg on a low point win. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis and not just rely on my assumption to vote there. Explain to me the inefficiencies of the aff to resolve the harms in the status quo.
*If I haven't mentioned it here, I don't have any strong thoughts on the matter and am most likely to be a pretty blank slate. Especially on theory. *
Debate is transformative. It is foremost an educational activity. As a classroom teacher, as well as an active coach and judge I approach nearly everything I do with that element of education in mind. I do think there should be some parameters to the game, but I also believe that part of the beauty of the game is that those parameters are generally underlimiting. I think this isn’t always the best for creativity, but that it definitely encourages students to do in-depth research on a broad range of topics.
Debate is challenging. I like arguments that are hard to beat, but not impossible. As a coach debate allows me to set personal challenges, some that I have accomplished others I may never achieve. There’s beauty in the struggle. As a coach, I want to be down in the trenches as much as possible, cutting cards, maximizing pre-round prep. and doing anything I can to win, even if it means being the waterboy before rounds. As a judge, I hope the debaters I judge will feel the same way. I don’t care how much experience you have, how good or bad at debate you are, I want you to be in it to win it. I also want you to not be afraid to fail.
Debate is exhausting. On my squad, I share responsibilities with two other phenomenal coaches. We all drive to and from tournaments, work tirelessly on hearing redos, facilitating practices, cutting evidence and overall trying to put all of our debaters in the best possible position to win debates. All of this can be excruciating and exhausting. If debaters on my team or at tournaments don’t’ share in this sense of sacrifice or the recognition that we are all a part of something a little bigger, there’s no payoff for me. Don’t be those kids. Being away from home and family so frequently during the school year CAN be a worthy sacrifice, if the students I coach and judge demonstrate excellence or a desire for excellence in competitive and interpersonal ways. Your coaches, myself included, do this for a reason. Most of us really want nothing but the best for you. Winning is important, but not everything. Have a good attitude and embrace the game.
Your coaches and judges give up a lot to be here on the weekends. It’s because deep down they care about you and the activity. It has made a marked difference in their lives and they want you to be rewarded in similar ways. Make this experience enjoyable and educational for yourself and others. If it’s not fun, maybe consider quiz bowl or model UN.
This year is weird. I am grateful that we get the chance to see each other virtually instead of having our activity sidelined for the entire year. Let's make the best out of the 20/21 season!
I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)
ONE DIAMOND COACH:
In 14 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Worlds School and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.
In the past 16 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 6 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, World Schools Debate, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.
I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions, Lincoln-Douglas.
TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.
This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.
My View on debate:
It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine, indict and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.
I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their social or political commentary.
If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. In fact, there is definitely ample ground for this argumentation in the April 2018 topic. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.
In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."
If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise blatantly discriminatory you will lose the round. Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.
This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.
- Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
- Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
- I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
- No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
- While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
- The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
- Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
- PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
- ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
- Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
- Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
- Shoo fly, you bug me:
- Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
- Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
- Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
- Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.
Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at email@example.com
DO NOT BLATANTLY TALK ABOUT SENSITIVE MATERIAL WITHOUT GIVING A WARNING TO MYSELF AND YOUR OPPONENT, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT ANOTHER PERSON HAS LIVED AND THIS WARNING ALLOWS THE PERSON TO EITHER SEPERATE THEMSELVES OR AT LEAST PREPARE FOR THAT MOMENT
I am a student at Arkansas State University studying political science and women and gender studies. I debated for four years in high school both within Arkansas and on the national circuit. Over these four years, I mainly focused on Lincoln- Douglas and was able to go to the National Tournament in this event. I also have experience in Congressional Debate and Public Forum, as well as knowledge on Policy Debate. I debated for A-State where I competed in Parliamentary Debate and started a Congress chapter for the school.
Evaluating the Debate
I really do not care what you run. I think debate is all about creativity and education. Creativity can be many things, including talking about what you're genuinely passionate about. This was my go-to strategy just because it allowed me to have more pathos and ethos within the round. I think debaters often get too carried away with trying to win the ballot that they forget about what they're talking about. Debate is certainly a game to be won, but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice the integrity of the content being delivered.
Some specific viewpoints:
I am not too fond of the idea that someone's ability to speak pretty should win them the round. However, I do believe it is the debater's job to ensure everyone can understand them. I am generally okay with speed, just as long as you're clear. With that being said, clarity is the most important thing, and you should never compromise it to read faster.
Also, it would be very helpful if you provide a concise road map before your speech. This is the only way I can ensure that everything you say will be taken into account. On that note, please try your best to signpost so I can evaluate things as clearly as possible.
I began debating the first year LD was introduced in Arkansas. Meaning, I am a very traditional person in that I believe some evaluation of framework is necessary to adequately evaluate the round. That does not mean I have to have a very traditional case. Framework can include a value, criterion, standard, role of the ballot, role of the judge, weighing mechanism, etc. The point is; framework is important to evaluate any case.
Please don't just say your framework either. Give me reasons why it matters in the round
In high school I hated Kritics, and sometimes I still do. I think the issue, however, is not with kritics, it's with debaters who are unable to understand what they're talking about. Don't worry, on many occasions, I was that debater who had no clue what I was talking about. I do ask, please don't run this position to just do it. There has to be a clear analysis and explanation of the literature.
Okay, topicality is really weird in high school, and for some reason, debaters are frowned upon for running this position. I think topicality can be a really strategic move for many negative teams, just as long as there is a clear violation and the interpretations are not closely related.
Counter Plans or Disads
They're cool, I don't care if you run them. You don't have to say "counter advocacy" you can call it what it is. Just make sure you have a clear counterplan, and explain the difference between it and the aff. Perm debate is always necessary and is the best way for affirmative debaters to gain access to this offense. I do not think a perm is a shift in advocacy, it is a test in competition.
- Please do not be rude to me or your opponent(s)
(this does not mean you can't have a personality or be "sassy" as some would say.)
- Please be courteous to those around you and respect their identities.
- Giving me voting issues is the best way to ensure I know how you weigh the debate... this goes back to a framework
- I want to be on an email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: Due to my busy lifestyle, I do not have a ton of background knowledge on these topics. So please do not assume I know all of your literature right off the bat.
Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com
TLDR: Do what you want to do and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. I've almost exclusively done K debate so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Debate well and have fun!
Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine.
Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness, For the aff, sometimes its easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense.
These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K rounds tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in debates.
Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.
While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on the other person conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than you extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you.
I was an English major for my undergraduate degree and appreciate logical and well-expressed arguments.
Some general preferences:
No theory arguments. Debate the given topic.
Be considerate and polite in Cross Examinations.
Speak at a rate that can be reasonably understood.
Discriminatory/demeaning arguments or expressions will NOT be tolerated.
I am an experienced debater and I have performed in multiple speech individual events. I am currently competing in Varsity IPDA debate at Arkansas Tech University.
I don't care if debaters spread, however, I feel like content needs to be stated clearly. I vote based on strength of arguments as opposed to quantity. I will vote based on courtesy so please remember that in order to promote civil discourse you must treat your opponents like the human beings that they are. If you cannot present an appropriate attitude in the round, then you will see that reflected on your ballot.
General Debate Paradigm:
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run topicality in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and conncetion with your judge. Spreading harms or elimiates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading only but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.
I beleive in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, reguardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.
Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasuive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
A word about style within the round:
Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
Running Logical Fallacies are strongly discouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove, they lose.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
I debated congress and PF all four years of high school, occasionally some LD thrown in.
I do not mind if you speak fast, but there is a fine line between clear and concise and gibberish.
Carry through arguments, and I can tell if you're asking a question just to throw your opponents off the rails, and of you are answering a question in a completely bogus way so you can confuse them. Answer in ways that reflect your case.
I am a CX college debater at Wake Forest University (RS for life). I also debated for 4 years at Bentonville West High School (DR forever). If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at email@example.com (Also add me to the email chain)
Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face
Go off on whatever you want
Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)
Love speed especially when clear
If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism (sorry bout it)
Also, cross-ex is like... the most important part to me...
I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).
Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bitchy, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.
IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams
KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.
Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says fvck the res that's totally fine too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.
Framework: As long as the affirmative doesn't screw up anything in this debate, I'd probably lean a little more aff 51/49, but that never means I won't vote on this. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.
TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho too ;)
DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.
CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity on CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.
Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine I guess but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.
KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for the ways in which plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.
Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.
Things I hate
- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)
- Stealing Prep
- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism, etc.
Debates supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.
If you got this far lol:
+.25 speaking points for each GOOD RuPaul's Drag Race reference ;) (This doesn't mean dancing btw - Asya told me I had to clarify that)
i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is mostly based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross, ie bringing up what happened during cross in your speeches. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, just don't sacrifice clarity. any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.
I'm on the debate team at Arkansas State University. I have 6 years of experience in a variety of formats, including LD, PF, StuCo, and Parli. I'm a traditional flow judge. You can run whatever you want, as long as it is well articulated.
I'm fine with spreading but your opponent needs to be fine with it as well. I value accessibility to the round.
Slow down when you read plan text, perm text, counterplans, etc. and please post them in the chat.
Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach
I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line by line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line by line argumentation.
Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line by line analysis. Organization is key to keep the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because your not clear, it could cost you the round.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.
I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all time.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is probably not a great idea with me in the back (I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away). Be clear, be concise, be economical. I coach primarily K teams, so it is immaterial to me whether or not you read a plan.
I care about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make. I like to be on email chains.
Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.
Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Not sure why teams reading HSI are making perms on the cap k. Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.
Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.
K Affs vs. FW
For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.
For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.
I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.
No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.
1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.
Affiliation and Big Picture:
I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.
I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.
Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.
Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.
I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.
Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.
K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.
DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.
Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.
Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.
Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is email@example.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.
Former k policy and congressional debater from Little Rock Central High School. I attend the University of Arkansas- Fayetteville and do not actively debate.
email me for questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: please don't call me ma'am- I won't call you out if you do, but I prefer not being called that. I use they/she pronouns & prefer they.
Spreading is OK for me.
In high school, I was the kind of debater that constantly had Framework debates and hated the subject. Now, especially judging formats like Big Questions and LD, I appreciate Framework a lot more and give that argument priority. Please tell me how to vote and what to vote for!
I also never read a capitalism or hegemony good argument, although I will vote for it if it's the more substantiated and better debated claim.
To get good speaker points, have a well structured speech, speak clearly, and use lots of good well thought out evidence. I think a well organized speech is what I look for and appreciate the most.
Hello lil baby debaters !!!!
heres the gist of it... I did policy debate at Bentonville High School for 3yrs..
I will easily be able to follow your arguments and your speed... but if your spreading is UNCLEAR then it won't make it onto my flow.
-- ORGANIZATION IS KEY!!!! If you don't sign post I won't know where arguments go. I'm a flow judge and if I don't know where your argument goes then it will probably hinder how I evaluate the round at the end
-- if you want outstanding speaker points you have to work for it... just because you can spread isn't enough for me, you have to be able to show me that you can speak PERSUASIVELY!! Slow down, emphasize words, repetition, hand gestures, analogies, eye contact. I should be completely moved to tears/ action by your speech.
-- NEVER END A SPEECH BEFORE THE TIMER GOES OFF. you should always have something to say
-- don't ask if you can sit during your speech the answer is no-- **THIS WAS PRECOVID U CAN SIT**
-- I will flow any argument but you better KNOW it and be able to explain it well. If you are going to read something that you just found a few hrs before... be careful
-- if it comes down to a specific card I will comb through it so this is a WARNING to make sure your card says EXACTLY what you are arguing .... I would rather you have incredibly strong analytics than mediocre evidence
-- if you have strong evidence/ can argue something crazy really well, then go for it. my outside biases/ opinions do not affect my view. You have good evidence that says Atlantis the lost city has been found then it's a valid argument that must be adequately addressed by your opponent. Argue that your team is actually pirates idc
-- rebuttals need impact calc.
-- I like rebuttals to consist of analysis of the round, less cards & more explaining WHY your team is winning
-- TOPICALITY IS A PRIORI (I don't care what the new fad is, but to me that is one of the most important things in the round) --> that also means, don't run dumb ones and make sure your technique is correct
-- NEG try not to bring up new arguments in the 2nc... it annoys me when rebuttals turn into the aff whining/ a debate over the rules of policy. If you DO bring up a new argument it better be the strongest thing you have, don't just waste time.
-- NEG I want to see a good use of the negblock... don't say the exact same thing for 13 mins
-- I WANT CLASH. Case debate is so often swept under the rug !!!! even if you don't have specific cards against their case I will flow analytics. Strong analytics !!!!!!! This holds true for all forms of debate.
-- don't be rude to your opponents during cross ex
-- don't run sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. arguments. If I think that the round has become offensive I will stop you and force you to take YOUR prep time to re evaluate. Don't be insensitive.
-- if you flash files I will not count it as prep
-- have a phone or timer for your speech... I will not be your judge AND timekeeper.
-- open cross ex is fine in my book BUT if your partner is answering all the questions for you I will take that to mean that you don't understand what you just read
-- do NOT start off cross ex with 'how are you' or lame filler questions. Just end cross ex or ask for more details... but don't waste my time. CROSS EX SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL.
-- K affs are fun, go for it !!!
-- do not forget to extend your case in every speech.
--AFF if you are going to have framework in your plan I better hear it until the very end. Don't say read it in the 1ac and then not mention it again until rebuttals.. I will consider it dropped
FOR PF and LD...
-- I've judged enough rounds that I understand and can follow the arguments you make
-- I'm okay with K's being run in an LD round but no CPs; progressive or traditional whatever your preference is go for it
-- I know that PF and LD are supposed to focus more heavily on slow, well spoken, persuasive speeches, that being said, I am okay with speed but DO NOT SPREAD.
-- look you don't get a lot of time in these speeches, I get that, but I also need to see that you are adequately responding to every argument on the flow !!! (This is part of being organized)
-- impact calc is still relevant, I wanna hear some hella persuasive speaking in those summary speeches
-- also you CAN debate the weighing criteron... I expect you to extend. Don't just define your criteron, you better put it into the context of the resolution.
-- no 'open cx' in pf, don't ask. You have grand crossfire/ you should know your case well enough to answer questions on your own.
-- have fun... good luck... I better hear some enticing, impressive, creative, and logical arguments !!!! Claaaaaassssshhhhhh! Do your research.
- don't just repeat your case over and over...
- i don’t remember reading or even thinking about paradigms the few times I participated in Congress back in the old day BUT in case you are reading this… most of what i said for PF/LD apply to you. I would say be more cautious with speed because other judges aren’t gonna like that even though i don’t mind as long as you can talk fast and still be persuasive and include tone fluctuation
- when disagreeing (or agreeing) with an argument if u mention someone refer to them as a fellow delegate.
-- if you decide to flash or have some sort of email chain during round I want to be included. email@example.com
-- I try not to disclose in round because I want you guys motivated and encouraged for your next round so PLEASE don't ask me who won
-- I expect you to come to the round having already read my paradigm... you may ask me questions about what I have said or anything I didn't specify but I will not repeat all of what I have typed
-- be unique and creative !!! Have fun with this !!!!! Can't wait to see how hard you have all worked !!
Little bit about me, I prefer to be called Henry, the whole judge thing is a little too formal for my liking. I did PF at BHS for three years in high school.
If I'm your judge it's pretty simple:
1. I like to see good, consistent, clash in the round
2. I am perfectly fine if you have some sass// pick at your opponent in your responses// questions during cross fire. That said you obviously know where the line is and to not cross is, and if you do I will immediately vote you down.
3. I hate definition debate, the only time that you should HAVE to use definitions is a word that is ambiguous or could have multiple meanings. So please don't define words like should, ought, etc. we know what they mean, spend those extra seconds somewhere else in your speech.
If you have any other questions I'll be happy to answer them before the round, however if you didn't take the time to read this I will not repeat my paradigms before rounds, it's your job to come prepared.