North Texas Longhorns District Tournament
2021 — TX/US
Debate (Debate) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I'm attending UT Dallas, graduating in 2022. Ideally. I graduated from Plano West in 2018 and competed in my Junior and Senior years in PF and IX. I approve of wearing fedoras in round.
I'm not the picky type, so I'll just be going over some general things.
Treat me like a more lay judge, meaning you will need to explain things as if I have never been anywhere near debate in my life, and will need to be clear. Spreading should be minimal as if I can't understand, I will not be able flow it, and that certainly won't be helping your case. With that in mind, be loud as well. That tends to help with clarity.
Speaks: I'll be lenient for the most part, so expect high points, within the 28-30 range. Unless you're being uncivil, in which case, expect something lower.
As for things within the round itself, the usual will apply. Have warrants, don't fire off as many cards as you can without purpose, have warrants again and make sure you weigh your arguments.
Most importantly, BE CIVIL. Especially in crossfire, or you'll lose speaker points and potentially more.
Direct me to the exit, because I probably wandered in by accident and am definitely lost and in the wrong room.
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17
I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NFL circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC. Given the meta of that judging pool and its exceptionally diverse preferences on various aspects of debate, I highly value debaters' versatility and adaptability in meeting judges where they are most comfortable adjudicating rounds. Despite this, I believe my paradigm is more adaptable to debaters than is typical because I adjudicate based on what participants have to say, not on whether their content more closely aligns with my assumptions on a given topic. I frequently endorse debaters whose argumentation exhibits effectiveness and efficiency even though I might disagree with the logic of a particular argument.
Thusly, I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.
On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:
I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.
Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.
Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis. I analyze public policy for a living, so your evidence should be stellar.
Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.
Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in a rebuttal if the argument is legitimate and strategic.
Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.
Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around argumentative agency.
Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.
Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important. Excessiveness and overkill where unnecessary is not typically strategic in pursuit of my ballot.
Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased and will be lazy.
Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.
To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to quality of argumentation.
Notes regarding the virtual nature of online tournaments:
I would advise to disclose advocacies in constructive and rebuttal speeches through file share to avoid the tragic scenario in which connectivity issues degrade clarity. I suggest utilizing OBS to record speeches so that they may be made available in the event of technical difficulties. I most strongly advise that you disclose all of your evidence and strategies on the open evidence wiki.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.
Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.
firstname.lastname@example.org email with questions or for email chain purposes.
update for St. Marks - 1. I've only judged a handful of rounds on the current topic/ I'm not familiar with the literature. 2. Please slow down on tags and analytics. 3. Please extend warrants for arguments.
-I have a second email attached to tabroom that also includes more of my judging record.
Update Nov 2018- I have noticed more hostility in the debate community and would strongly prefer debaters be civil towards one another. I don't want this statement to discourage individual's from making jokes or having fun in round, but I don't tolerate overly confrontational behavior, hostile behavior, racism, sexism, and discrimination in round. I reserve the right to decrease speaks and in the most extreme cases drop a debater for creating a hostile environment.
Some general information
-I enjoy judging high quality K/ Performance debaters and am reading more critical literature in my free time.
- I am normally somewhat familiar with each topic.
- I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates(that doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments, but I would prefer the debate be focused elsewhere if possible).
-I am ambivalent about disclosure theory, but will vote on it and have voted on it in the past if won in round.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to articulate my decision at the end of each round and highlight a few things each debater can improve upon.
Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well)
I took this from M. Overing's paradigm and I think it sums up what I want debaters to do in a round pretty well.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
Side note ignore any grammar problems I’m writing this quickly.
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015
prior:George Washington University ( where I briefly competed in college CX and went to some local and regional tournaments)
Parish Episcopal (competed in LD and extemp every now and then. Go to my LD section for more about my high school debate career)
Paperless stuff- I don’t count time for flashing evidence, but will severely dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is flashing nobody should be taking prep.
LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards)
Policy – Ive judge a handful of rounds on the 2016-2017 high school topic, but I don't judge often( I primarily judge LD) . If you have questions before the round and want to know anything specific I will do my best to articulate how I view debate and give you any insights into my paradigm. Aff should probably be topical, but its possible to win that T doesn’t matter. . I haven't read a ton of critical literature, but I'm familiar with most of the authors K debaters use regularly. Specific DA’s and counterplans are great. Kritiks that link to the aff are great. Link of omission K’s are not. Word pics, and other random stuff is fine. I'm a big picture kind of guy. Please explain what the role of the ballot is and you should be in good shape. Also, I will definitely want to be on the email chain so hook me up!
My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but that is the only first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed so that they are consistent.
If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.
There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.
Things I have voted for AND against
K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what will cause and what will the after will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.
counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.
Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.
Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.
RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 1//29/21.
Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.
I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.
Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.
Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics.. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.
So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.
I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think promoting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise.
My email is email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.
I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.
NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time
DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC on the your email chain: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.
I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this is a flip for sides has to be done.
You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.
When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.
Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc.
Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below:
Is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T.
Tend to look at in round abuse.
They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative.
Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards.
Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments.
I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should be fun. A sense of humor is always appreciated.
The less work I have to do the more energy I can devote to listening to the round so make things easy on your boy. Tell me why I should care about something, why is something bad/worse, why does ______ matter to me, how should I weigh the round, etc.
I'll vote on theory, Ks, CPs, DAs, stock cases, traditional or progressive stuff. If there's logic to the argument presented, then I'll gladly listen to it. I have at least a basic to moderate understanding on what could be presented. Plus hearing the same five points round after round gets boring. Making it interesting gets extra speaker points (if anyone still cares about those).
I want there to be engagement between arguments. It's debate so...debate each other. Don't just read your points over and over again without any clash. What am I as a judge supposed to do with that? Make the two worlds smash into each other, follow the logical conclusions, get everyone thinking.
I'm a pretty happy guy so lets keep things light in round. Assertiveness and maintaining your ground is highly encouraged, but don't cross the line into being mean or disrespectful. Rounds aren't worth your character.
tldr:Keep me entertained with some logic and we're Gucci.
I am a relatively flow judge. I value weighing, and extension of case that you want to be judged off of. I expect most delinks or turns to be addressed.
I’ve coached LD Debate for 15 years. Policy debate for nine. PF Debate for seven. Other speaking events for 25 years.
I like a good old fashioned philosophy debate. With that said, I understand those are few and far between. I am not progressive. But I won’t vote you down for it, either.
In light of this new virtual format, please pay attention to your speed and articulation, especially in the 1AR and the 1NR. Both of those speeches can make or break your round if you aren’t paying attention to your speed in a virtual setting. It is also imperative that you include me on your email chain. email@example.com Many tournaments have issues with file sharing software. Email is easy and quick.
Lincoln Douglas Points ~
Speed - Don’t spread. There’s no fire. Debate is about communication, not seeing how many points you can get your opponent to skip because they didn’t hear them correctly.
Value - Choose a value other than morality. One that actually matches the resolution. I like to see a good value clash. If you don't know the purpose of a criterion don't just throw it in there to look pretty.
Theory - Make sure you understand it yourself before you try to run it in a round. Don’t throw everything at your opponent and hope something sticks. I coach theory. I know theory. If you don’t, don’t bother.
Framework - Should be clear and labeled. If you can both agree on a mutual framework, I will judge based on which debater upheld it better.
Offcase arguments- Have fun. I can follow whatever here. Just give me a heads up as to how many you have.
Topicality - I'm fine, if it's well structured.
Case/Plan - If the topic lends itself to one, that's fine. I prefer not to hear a counterplan unless you can show me the value of it. This isn't Policy. But if you want to run it, go for it.
DA's - I will vote you down for non-uniqueness. Make sure your link is clear.
At the end of the round, make sure you give me clear voters. Don’t make me pick my own. I will go for the value I like better. If you didn’t give me an overview, I expect an underview.
Last but not least, include me on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
PF - Crystalize your arguments. Be civil. Give me voters. Make sure your arguments can be understood by the average person. PF is constantly evolving. As it evolves, you as a debater should evolve.
IE's ~ I'm a fan of character development, building the story arc, and clear understanding. Your piece needs to have levels. It shouldn't be the same tone throughout.
OOs and Info ~ Teach me something. Make me think. Leave me wanting to make a change in my world or the world at large. In Info, your visual aid needs to be unique, eye catching, but not distracting.
Extemp ~ I'm looking for reliable sources that are appropriate and relevant to your topic. Cite those sources. I'm looking for a solid organizational structure. Use your time wisely.
A. General: I find it difficult to vote for an argument that doesn't have proper explanation or analysis. If you only make a claim, I am not likely to do work for you to actually win that claim. You can run any argument, as long as it is not offensive or harmful. I am fine with speed, but I'll yell "clear" if I am unable to understand. Don't read blocks like cards. Tell me what to vote on and why.
B. Read whatever you want. I'll vote on anything.
1. Theory: I evaluate theory as a reason to reject the team, unless told otherwise.
2. Disadvantages: I evaluate on an offense-defense framework. This means that offensive arguments are more strategic, and that impact calculus is important. You can still win with defense though. Links should be contextualized if not specific.
3. Counterplans: It is good to put theory, but to not just stop there. You should actually answer the permutation because I am less likely to buy perm theory arguments. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, that just means you'll have to do more work on them.
4. Kritiks: I'm cool with the K. I haven't read every K, and if I have it might not be as in depth. You can read your kritik, but there should be clear explanation so I know what I'm voting off of and why. Jargon won't get you very far, if your opponent is confused just assume that I am, too - just to be safe. If you only do jargon and bad explanation I'll give you bad speaks and you're more likely to lose. Your links should be contextualized if not specific.
I've judged at the invitational, district, and regional levels since 2007 in the Southeast Texas region and for the Dallas-Fort Worth circuits. I prefer LD, PF, and Congress, but don't mind judging novice CX.
I consider myself a relatively laid-back judge that is adaptable to style based on region/competition. I can buy most arguments, no matter how crazy!
Speed/Spreading- I believe that speech and debate competitions are designed to develop your communication, critical thinking, and argumentation skills; therefore, I don't believe speeding and spreading are appropriate. Your goal is to deliver clear and concise arguments with good documentation and well-thought-out points. If you do this, there is no need to speed.
How do you know if you are speeding? If you are gasping for air, you are going too fast! If I can't take notes, you are going too fast. I usually do not partake in email chains, so it is your job to make sure I am able to flow based on your speech.
Timing- You are more than welcome to time yourself. I actually prefer it.
Sit vs Stand- You are welcome to do whatever is comfortable for you based on the classroom setup.
Prep Time- Use it! That's what it is there for.
CX- Ask clarifying questions that could help set up your arguments. Don't debate during CX.
Email Chains- Please exchange information and get this process done quickly and efficiently. I have been in rounds where we spent 10+ minutes exchanging emails. Have a paper copy of your case and evidence in case technology fails or it is taking too long.
For LD, I prefer a more traditional, value-based debate, but I am open to a more progressive debate if that is the approach you want to take.
Evidence- I like to see that your case is well-documented from timely sources. However, please don't spend your debate arguing that your evidence is "more recent" or "more legitimate". State why you think this is the case and move on. Try not to make it the main argument of the round.
Dr. Christi Grudier
"call me water because i vote by following the path of least resistance." - edmond wen
i’m studying biology and africana studies at johns hopkins. my debate philosophy is profoundly influenced by michael koo and joseph barquin.
active affiliations: colleyville cz, little rock lp, baltimore city college, beacon high school
people seem to not take this part of my paradigm seriously, but i mean it – the speed at which y’all debate at is unnecessary or detrimental. take your time, be purposeful with your speed, and slow down. do not go at lightspeed just because you can. i promise you can deliver warrants and implications at a slower pace; you do not need to card dump at 500wpm.
pf toc: dumping a bunch of cards on me and then not implicating them to show the effect on the link chains in this round, but tagline extending instead, is not debating. do not expect speaks above a 27.5 if you do this – clash and warrant. this is true even if you’re going for something cold conceded.
^ also, start setting up the email chain shortly before the official start time so we can get going. thanks!
tech determines truth – this is my general principle except for oppressive positions such as “x-ism good” or “the usfg should bomb (anywhere in the global south)” – do not read anything in this vein in front of me lest you risk a swift loss and the lowest speaks i can give.
i like k debate, i hate american hegemony.
but really – i can judge other strategies and styles, and i’ve thought “the 2nr should’ve been framework” too much for me to believe i hack against it. although i sincerely believe we can all do better than arguing for american hegemony, i’m technical enough to vote for it… but the impact turn is very persuasive c:
at the end of the day, just collapse on the path of least resistance (said it twice, so you know this is important to me). this lets me know how sharp your round vision is and it will be well rewarded in speaks. please warrant and implicate your arguments. be comparative in rebuttals – layer, frame, and filter the arguments! if you leave me with unresolved issues, you will likely hate the assumptions i make, so fill in the gaps for me.
tidbits: (1) do not read tricks in front of me, i am not a kid. (2) when asked to look at cards, i will only check to see whose articulation of the evidence is more accurate, so you still need to have evidence spin. (3) engage case – hard to vote neg when you let the aff run away with the 1ac. (4) implicate the ontology debate!! why do you win the round if your thesis is true? (5) topicality and theory debates are the hardest for me to resolve – you need to be extremely clear with robust explanations. (6) if this applies -- please have a screenshot of the violation ready in the doc/email chain before you start your speech. (7) evidence should be cards -- this is especially a problem in pf -- if you send ev in a format where i cannot verify its integrity, your speaks will drop and i may discount the ev and the argument it serves entirely.
do not post-round me in bad faith. it's extremely... ironic, how some of y'all will read arguments about racial equity, even within debate, and then yell at a femme of color once the round is over. either write me off as a bad judge and move on, or learn from it.
I judge LD, PFD, Congress, I.E.'s. Coaching for 14 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.
I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at the max and deduct from there, but because of their arbitrary nature, I don't have huge variances or decimals.
Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA tournaments, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting for their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job. Direct questioning should be concise and meaningful, not just an attempt to throw your own 2 cents in. Presiding officers don't auto-break from prelims; you need to be outstanding and any flubs or parliamentary procedure errors will result in lower hourly scores.
World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.
Public Speaking: Conversational delivery necessary. I'm more of an "appeal to logos" guy than "appeal to pathos" in Extemp, so save the emotional pleas for things like Oratory instead. I will rank down if you're trying to push the grace period as part of the speech in general. I don't mind canned intros in Extemp, but at least make them connected to the prompt. Oratory should follow a clear format like "problem, effects, solutions" and not be a personal venting session. Informative speeches MUST have visual aids; considering it's the only real event that showcases one's ability to inform in this manner, I think you should prioritize including all types of measures to inform the audience.
Interp: Teasers and/or cold opens are necessary and the prepared intro should follow a format that gets the audience to understand WHY you chose the piece. Characterizations must be consistent. Be cautious and selective about how you employ accents around me. I frustrate during thematic pieces like poetry or POI if I can't tell which selection you're on. Build upon the theme in the prepared intro and fully list the authors and selections instead of just saying "a program."
I focus on argumentation and how clearly you attack the opponent's arguments. Speaking style is important but I prefer a focus on arguments and clash, rather than fluff/rhetoric.
Affiliations and History:
I am the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien High School in La Verne, CA from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
I ran a 3 week lab at Stanford on the CJR topic and have judged almost 40 rounds on it.
I judged 29 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020) (not including practice rounds without a decision rendered).
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
Front Matter Elements:
Please email (email@example.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.
I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.
I have been voting neg a lot lately. Sometimes this has been on the K v Plan Affs, sometimes it has been on FW v K Affs, and a lot of times just when the aff drops something that ends the game after the 2AC. I am not going to be checking myself for Aff/Neg bias until November, but I think that I may unconsciously dislike most affs on this topic (including LD Sept/Oct).
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.
The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.
I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.
I try to read all evidence as it is read throughout the debate. This can go well or badly for you, but only if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).
I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge).
If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education.
In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.
I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.
CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'
While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.
Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand
Online Debating Preferences:
Each team gets 1 technology error flag. If your opponent's audio/video crashes, if something happens to your computer, if your partner's audio/video crashes, etc. Any other technology issues that might hinder you from completing your speeches are your responsibility. Signal me by either saying 'Tech Issue' or by waving your hands--using chat functions will be sufficient if we cannot rely on audio/visual.
a. The way that this will proceed is as follows: 1. Flag thrown 2.All prepping and debate round activity ceases 3. Speech act paused and tech issue communicated 4. Resolution pursued 5. Tech test with non-round content 6. Resume round
If I am having issues with audio/video, I will let you know via audio and/or chat text.
I will defer to stated tournament online guidelines if they are present otherwise.
In Public Forum and Extemp: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. Overall, I enjoy a good performance. Persuade me, but most of all, wow me with your passion and love fot the subject you are discussing. Now, passion does not equal yelling. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious. Again, I enjoy a good performance. Speak with passion and make me believe that what your saying is important.
In DI, HI, DUO: Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices. Storytelling must be clear. I come from a theatre background, so I need clarity in story telling and clear choices. Most of all, go after your objective with everything you've got. I want to see the importance of the scene to you and the character you are portraying. What's happening in the scene is life or death for the characters, so it needs to be important to you too. But most of all, have fun. If you're not having fun, then it's not worth doing or watching.
Be kind and have fun!
I am an old school judge. I want the main focus to be on framework. Most times my ballots go to the debater who links all arguments to values and criteria successfully. I can keep up with some speed, however I tend to favor persuasion and logic over spreading and tons of cards. I want to hear impacts of cards, not just the card itself. Debaters should listen to each other and use that as the basis of clash, not just contradiction. If you plan to use theory and critiques, you better explain it clearly and don't assume my knowledge.
I am not a fan of spreading. I do not want you to overload with cards and theory.
In Public Forum and Extemp: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).
In Congressional Debate: I value natural delivery of points and impacts, and reasonable positions; talk pretty. I look for acknowledgement of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.
World Schools: a great debate event that should not sound, look, or feel like any other event. Please show that you understand and respect its norms, differences and value.
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious.
I love POI as the most wide-open opportunity we have to connect and weave an unexpected and dazzling array of related choices to elevate an important advocacy.
In DI, HI, DUO: I think of everything we do in Speech and Debate as storytelling. Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices.
I believe speaking skills can, do, and should win tournaments. There are only two outcomes, and they're both great: you win or you learn. And you keep and add to the learning forever! Be kind and have fun!
Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)
Email for email chains:
If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.
-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.
I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.
In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.
That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.
Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.
l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.
I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.
One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.
I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.
I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.
Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.
Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.
I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.
Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.
Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.
You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.
Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.
Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.
Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.
Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.
Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.
Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.
FOR PF Debate:
General: I consider myself a classic PF judge and believe in the intent with which PF was formed in order to provide a clean and more balanced style of debate. I expect debaters to know and follow the rules.
Use of evidence: I prefer a clear, well-structured debate with thoughtfully selected and well-documented evidence that is used persuasively and is strongly linked to impacts. Cramming in more evidence just to add more evidence has no purpose without successful connection to clear impacts.
Flow and structure: Flow is important and I expect arguments to carry over the debate.
Speed: Spreading should not occur in public forum. While I can follow speed, I am do not tolerate speed over clear communication, especially if speed is used to try to cram in more evidence and/or to try to confuse the opponent or judge. This is a debate - not an auction. Competitors should not gasp or have to take deep breaths for air; speakers should be able to regulate their speaking and breathing.
Demeanor: I expect a respectful and professional debate in tone and volume and for debaters to face the judge. Do not cut off your opponent and take turns during cross ex.
Maize High School (China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales)
Wichita State (Alliances)
Cornell '24 (still debating)
Coach for Maize High School. Call me Connor. they/them
1. Do whatever you're best at and I'll be happy. I used to run Ks in high school, but by senior year I figured out I was way better debating policy. Last season, ~50% of my 2nrs were T; however, I find myself mostly in clash debates. I've voted for both fw and the K roughly equal amounts. Really, do whatever you want.
2. Disclosure is good. Preferably on the wiki. Plus .3 speaker points if you fully open source the round docs on the wiki (tell me before the RFD, I'm not going to check for you).
3. I really don't want to do a SpeechDrop or whatever. You can email me if you have pre or post-round questions, or need to alert me to something before the round. Prefered subject line: [Tournament] [round] [aff team] (aff) vs [neg team]. ex. Heritage Hall Rd 4 Little Rock Central GL (aff) v Maize LM.
4. Content warnings are also good.
5. Please number and label your arguments. Give your off names in the 1nc.
7. Please alert me to any concerns about structural impediments that might implicate how I evaluate the round so I can make accommodations.
8. Don't be mean or offensive. Please actively try to make the community inclusive. I will not hesitate to dock speaks, drop you, or report you to the tournament directors/your coach if you say or do anything offensive or unethical.
9. If you have any specific questions, please ask.
I'm a big fan of posting the roadmap in the chat. It at the very least shows me you read my paradigm and it makes everyone's lives a bit easier.
Please slow down. It's possible that I might miss things during the round due to tech errors. Most mics are also not great and so it can be harder to understand what you are saying at full speed
I have a multiple monitor setup so I might be looking around but I promise I'm paying attention.
Please be transparent as to when you are taking prep or when you're having tech problems so I know what's going on.
If my camera is ever off, please get some sort of confirmation from before you begin your speech. Not doing this has led to me missing a speech which is very awkward.
Evidence is a major factor in my decision. I will read your evidence but I won't apply it for you.
Don't clip. That means keep track of where you mark cards. Clipping also includes being overtly unclear.
Inserting stuff is generally okay, especially if it's data/graph/etc. I also think you should be able to insert rehighliting of the other team's cards if they misrepresent their evidence. It doesn't make sense to me to punish one team for the other team's poor scholarship. I think this encourages teams to actually read each other's cards and engage in better research practices. Please don't abuse this, only insert clear cut examples of misrepresentations.
---Soft Left affs---
I'm probably not the best judge for these. I think too many impact framing debates get stale where arguments just don't get resolved. I think that these debates can be really interesting if debaters actually attempt to clash instead of spreading through blocks. Soft-left affs also can't answer disads with only impact framing. Obviously, leverage the 1ac against the other team as much as you can- but it can only go so far.
I think most of these affs are probably consequentialist (i.e. you're trying to create a better consequence through a policy) so I'm not sure how your consequentialism bad framing helps you.
I've voted for soft left affs in the past, but I think on balance I tend to vote neg more often than not.
Please don't get stuck in your blocks. Stepping away from your laptop and actually clashing will be rewarded.
If you're going to read multiple theory args in the 2ac, please space them out from each other, otherwise it's difficult to flow..
---Ks on the neg---
I've read some literature but I am no means an expert. Read whatever you want, but don't assume I inherently know everything about what you're talking about.
Specific link analysis is very good and I tend to be somewhat skeptical of links of omission or topic-wide links. I think really good K debaters spend more time contextualizing links to the 1ac than they do reading 60 new link cards or whatever.
Affs should utilize the 1ac to their advantage more effectively. I'd rather you didn't read the same AT:K's frontline that you read every round, but rather explain the ideological inconsistencies of the neg or utilize your 1ac as offense.
I think affs should be in the general direction of the topic. That doesn't mean I'm going to outright not vote for you if you're extremely anti-topical, but rather that I'm more likely to buy negative framework arguments.
Negatives should engage with case more. This is often where negatives actually win debates since so many 1ac's these days are written to exclusively answer framework. Impact turns are often underrated in this aspect, and I'm very willing to vote on one so long as it isn't repulsive (i.e. racism good, etc).
Affs should explain how their counterinterp generates offense/defense to help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model. I do believe that affs need counter interps. I don't think shotgunning a bunch of underdeveloped framework DAs is a good or efficient use of your time. Most of them are usually the same argument anyways, and I'd rather you have 2-3 carded & impacted out disads.
Negs should explain internal link turns and quantify limits/grounds - procedural fairness/switch side is compelling, and TVAs often require a lot of work to be compelling.
Good negatives also contextualize their impacts to that of the aff's. That is to say, if you're reading a turn, debate the implications of that turn.
These debates often get bogged down in overviews and are overall very messy to flow. I will reward debaters who keep this debate organized.
A lot of the stuff on fw applies here
I lean competing interpretations. I think that reasonability makes way more sense as a limits bad arg more than like an alternative to competing interps.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.
I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.
27.7 to 28.2 - Average
28.3 to 28.6 - Good job
28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average
29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job
29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.
30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.
I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.
I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.
Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.
GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Codymorrowtx1@gmail.com
General Debate: I follow clear line by line arguments, I should not have to work hard to follow your arguments or understand what you are trying to prove. Clear extensions with solid analysis will win the round, being rude won’t. If your plan to win is to interrupt your opponents and be rude you are going to have a tough time. Im good with speech, just slow down in tags, dates and authors. That being said if you don’t slow down o won’t flow it. Just because it’s on your doc doesn’t mean you read it. If you want me to flow it then slow it down. If you set up an email chain my email is Alyson.firstname.lastname@example.org. I have experience competing and judging in LD, CX and PF so I know how the game is played. Let me know if you have any questions.
Case: Clear arguments that are well laid out are the way to go. I prefer quality of quantity. Your goal should be to win because you have a better case not smother your opponent in arguments.
T: This is important. I don’t care how much of a positive impact comes from your case, if it doesn’t link in it will not win. Proving this sooner rather than later is key.
DAs and CPs: Do it, I’m game.
Ks and KAff: Prove that it’s is the true and relevant and you got it.
Theory: I don’t buy theories that waste my time. If you are going to run a theory make make it worth my time and energy.
School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None
Hired - yes
If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a
Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas
College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate
Years Judging/Coaching - 4
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots
Check all that apply
_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments
Rounds judged in other events this year
Have you chaired a WS round before? yes
What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.
How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.
Now onto the stuff about me...
NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.
***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.
In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.
I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.
Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.
tldr: I will evaluate every argument and attempt to be as impartial as possible. I am fine with speed, theory, Kritiks(although I haven't read much lit other than antiblackness/afropess), and virtually any other argument. I am a firm believer that debate is a game so if an argument brought by your opponent is morally repugnant you will have to prove why this is the case as I will not intervene.
T: I love good T debates, don't go for blip T args please. If your gonna read T explain why the definitions are important to the context of the round and give me reasons to prefer. I also evaluate T before K but can change if you tell me why.
Util: read a lot of this in high school. am cool with util and LARP args, will default to extinction outweighs unless told otherwise.
Theory: went for this a lot in high school. I will vote on pretty much any theory arg as long as it is well warranted. I am a firm believer in disclosure, but will vote against disclosure theory if provided with reason to do so.
RVIs - default to RVIs
Default to CIs, can do reasonability if convinced otherwise.
Ks - am fine with them, although the only Ks I'm really familiar with are cap and antiblackness/afropess. Please explain what the alt means and how it solves the aff if it does, often times debaters through buzzwords and hope that I know what the alt means. I am fine with alts that require a rejection of the aff as long as there is a pedagogical reason to do so.
I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front of me, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, and anything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always be read. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on the individual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it.
Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do not vote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere near that 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.
Won't be able to spread me out of the round as long as you are clear. If you are not then I will say clear once and then after that anything that does not end up on the flow does not get carried over.
Hello! I am currently a student at UT Austin and a former debater at Plano West Senior HS. I have competed and judged rounds of Public Forum, Congress and Extemp. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at email@example.com.
PF/Congressional Debate Paradigm:
1. Argumentation: I am most focused on the logic and content of your speeches. As a judge, the easier it is for me to understand your arguments and their clash, the easier it is for me to evaluate your performance. Evaluate the larger context of your arguments and weigh impacts. I appreciate a good argument whether I support it or not, as a judge, I try my best to stay unbiased. I will not rank debaters that fail to support and strengthen arguments with evidence. And please weigh as much as you can.
2. Content (rebutting and extending): I expect refutations to be strong and supported by both logic and evidence (if necessary). If you are expanding on a previous speaker’s arguments try to highlight how you are furthering their contention. I do not find it necessary for later speakers to say the names of previous speakers, but if it helps to clarify the evidence or arguments you are referring to, I would recommend doing so. Do not restate previous speakers’ arguments as your own, that is not extending and will not help you. I expect speakers to have rebuttals and responses in the round that are backed by logic or evidence. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it is not possible to weigh it.
3. Participation: Be an active member in the round with strong questions in cx and make your speeches relevant. Congress is a participation event, and failing to participate (speaking or questioning) will hurt your ranking. Do not use cx as a time to seem like you are participating in the round with fluff questions. I will only take note of strong questioning which requires paying attention. Make motions when necessary and try not to waste time.
4. Speaking: I appreciate a good and clear speaker, but pretty speaking isn’t enough to be successful in the round. Try your best to weigh and refute clearly and explain everything thoroughly. As a judge, I do not want to focus on your speaking style so try your best to have a speaking personality that isn’t a distraction but rather a strength.
I highly value respect for one another in congress rounds, so please remember that a strong debater is not a rude one.
Let’s have some fun, I can’t wait to see what yall come up with. Good luck!
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now
firstname.lastname@example.org - I would like to be on the email chain :)
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.
Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.
DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.
Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.
Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.
K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.
Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.
*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.
please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Colleyville Heritage HS '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit), (I also messed around in WSD and LD)
University of Oklahoma '24: currently doing ~policy~ (i study poli sci, phil, and econ)
virtual debate things:
i've judged a fair amount of online tournaments this season, here are a few things i've noticed:
- the faster you go the more you glitch (i really don't care if you go fast, it just kinds happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would probably be in y'alls best interest to send a speech doc
- for some reason it's taking debaters a long time to find and send evidence, if you read it in a speech, expect it to be called and have it ready (again, i recommend an email chain but it's up to you)(also look at the ev part of my paradigm at the very bottom :) )
- just know, i'm always ready. my camera is off a lot mainly because i am most likely judging in a dorm room with other people there
- please pre flow, i don't understand why online debate means 20 minutes to set up for every round after all the debaters get there (if there are tech issues that's different, but like, let's go)
+1 speaker points if you create an email chain AND USE IT PROPERLY ie. don't just set it up and never use it, or only send case and call for cards throughout the round (a proper email chain sends before every speech)
welcome to my paradigm:
Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.
- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it
- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact
- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)
- terminalize impacts
- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)
- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments
- SPEED: my threshold for speed is very high, and i honestly don't care how fast you go WITH THAT SAID, if you read my online debate portion of my paradigm-- when you go fast online you glitch so i don't understand what you're saying (even if you don't spread). so if you want to go faster/spread whatever, just send a speech doc and give me a heads up -- this is only acceptable if your opponents know how to flow off a speech doc (ie. be careful at locals)
- quality > quantity
- tech > truth (I try as much as possible)
- default util
- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's like an ov or fw), i honestly don't really flow it, i already got the args from case, you're just repeating yourself at that point
- 2nd Speaking: frontline offense in rebuttal pls
- sticky defense: if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense isn't sticky. if 2nd rebuttal doesn't, defense is sticky.
- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)
- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate
- I didn't run progressive args in high school but I have a general understanding of how they function, you can run them in front of me but it has to be clearly warranted (also, the other side should understand what you are reading, if you run this stuff against novices, small schools, etc. I will vote you down and give you 25s)
- if you want to skip grand i won't be mad #abolishgrandcross
evidence: (enjoy this cute little rant)
sparknotes version: don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue I AM VERY LIKELY TO VOTE ON IT (if it's legit)
I literally don't understand why evidence ethics are so bad. Just make an email chain and send all the evidence you're reading before every speech, it's not hard and cx/ld have been doing it forever, it doesn't put you behind. Also, if for some reason you choose to make the round harder and take more time by not doing an email chain please do not take long to pull up your evidence. I really don't want to set a time limit so just don't take 10 minutes to pull up evidence. The standard should be: if you read it in the speech, expect it to be called (so have the cut card with link and cites ready to go).
If you have any questions about what to do in terms of presenting evidence, I have linked the NSDA rules below. I will at least give you 25s for a violation. If your opponents are in violation, make it a voting issue, no cap. I will vote them down.
- if you do make it a voting issue, i will call for the evidence in question to make sure there is an actual violation (please don't think it's game over for you if someone calls you out for bad evidence but it's actually legit)
- I need cut cards with (at least) a link to the full article
- I know this is a lot but there are too many debaters trying to cheat the system with bad evidence and I just want to make it crystal clear how I am judging rounds and that I'm not making up things just as an excuse to vote debaters down (and yes unfortunately I need to make that distinction)
Other people I try to judge like/influenced my debate style:
I like creative arguments, you can run anything. I am fine with speed, I will say clear once and then put my pen down and stop flowing you. Remember to signpost, and make sure to list clear voters at the end of your last speech. Yes, I want to be on the email chain.
- Director @ Coppell
- Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
- Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
- Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com
- This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
- Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
- I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
- I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I was a flex debater, typically went for more critical (K) arguments, and am happy to evaluate policy arguments.
- I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.
- I believe the topic should provide debatable ground, but I don't think that's exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
- Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.
- If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, but these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
- If forced by lack of comparison to use my own framework I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.
- I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory. Be creative.
- The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
- A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."
Rebuttals/How to win
- You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
- I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.
Lincoln Douglas, specifically
- While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
- I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.
Public Forum, specifically
- PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
- Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
- Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
- Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
- Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I tend to believe someone should advocate a mechanism to alter the status quo. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk provided in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.
I am Dyspolity@gmail on email chains.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Guyer in Denton. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is not one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.
Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.
Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.
Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you ae functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.
One More Concern:
There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.
I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.
Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.
I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.
I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.
1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. Your language choices should reflect scholarship.
Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS
Now attending Texas A&M University.
General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc.
Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)
Speaks: Usually give around 28-30s. I will however tank your speaks if you are (outright rude to me or your opponents, racist, sexist ect.)
Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.
I may ask for evidence at the end of the round
Be respectful in CX. Usually, the first speaker should have the first question
Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.