RRISD Middle School UIL Impromptu Tournament
2021 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
hey! my name is sneha bhale (she/her) and i attend westwood high school. i compete in extemp as my main event both locally and nationally and i do congress on the side. i also have some experience with pf.
debate events- please add me to the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
extemp- i prioritize content over fluency. i give the 1 to whoever answers the question properly and addresses every actor mentioned. for fluency, fluency errors should not impede my ability to understand you and humor can go a long way. as for sources, please do not make them up and try to diversity your sources (use think tanks and academic journals). as for time, i don't care a whole lot but make sure it's evenly spaced out for every point. overall, your content should make sense and should have sources, and having humor incorporated and a conversational tone will go a long way with ranks.
pf- treat me as a flay judge. i appreciate slow speaking and concise arguments. My flow shouldn't be all over the place and should be easy to follow. i think weighing is extremely important and the continuation of arguments brought up. the ff should extend the summary, not bring up new points as a last-minute effort. during cross ex, please be patient and polite. i will doc speaks if anyone in the debate is rude, racist, or sexist. any sort of cheating regarding stealing prep, poor card cutting, or anything else will result in the ballot going to the other team. overall, i like a clean flow, slow speaking, weighing, roadmaps, warrants, and proper evidence protocols.
cong- the PO should know proper procedures and keep track of precedence and recency well. i highly dislike pre-prepared speeches. speeches that follow the debate and have clash go a long way. the questioning period should be peaceful and respectful to all competitors. overall, i like clash in speeches, effective questioning, proper use of sources, and clear speaking.
And most importantly, have fun with it! Debate after all is an activity first, competition second. Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safe place or a better experience for you.
Middle School Impromptu for UIL:
I currently do Congressional Debate, but I have done middle school UIL impromptu in the past, so I am familiar with the event (even though it has been a while).
The main things I look at when judging impromptu are fluency, confidence, and engagement. I also think that (appropriate) humor can be used to really elevate an impromptu speech to the next level. Overall, I consider myself to be pretty chill, so just try your best!
Hi! My name is Katie Falcon and I main domestic extemp.
Some things I look for when judging extemp are:
- For content, explain everything very clearly, I do not need super confusing and complex arguments to be woo'd. Explain super complicated things like I am a five year old. I would love to see use of more than just daily news sites, so if you include books / think tanks = big flex. Also, I would love to see an umbrella answer. Extra points if you weave your AGD throughout the speech
- fluency is definitely a little more important to me than content. Please make sure your hand movements are not super close together nor out of frame. I do not need jokes to be super impressed, as even the most serious speech can still win. Use tonal variation and facial expressions (eyebrows), I love emotion.
- I will be looking at the times of your intro and points and will take that into consideration , please have your time structure down
- I love hearing those on tops :)
- Good luck
EMAIL CHAIN: email@example.com
If you have ever had me as a judge you know I pace and move around the room during prep. I am hyper-mobile. My learning necessitates movement. In the virtual world sometime I pace and go back and forth off screen, but I am never more than a couple feet away and always listening and ready to go when you say you are ready. Just don't want anything thinking I bailed on them.
I was a policy debate in the 1800s. This means debate is about the flow although I am old so your speed should be at 80-90% of what you think is appropriate. I currently coach LD and WSD and Congress, although I mostly have LDers. I tend to have more of a policy oriented views on issues given my history and given where I coach tends to push those formats more often than not. In terms of judging, I judge almost exclusively LD. Personally, I am a classic liberal. This means, I will listen to anything, but argument from those place will have language that is more understood by me. I have personal experience with violence. This means you should be very considerate and understanding when it comes to warnings so that I can prepare myself mentally.
I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are simply not consider of opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks). Also, debaters who attempt to spread out an opponent because they are a newer or less experienced debater will quickly lead me to give them the lowest possible speaks. Let me be clear, I do not have a problem with speed. I have a problem when debaters use it to exclude others. Foster an inclusive community! In general, treat your opponent in a considerate manner and if choose not to my brain starts to find reasons to vote against you. I will never back-flow, this is a oral activity.
This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.
I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debate very well and should only be used when you are had an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate.
I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.
A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good, skep, determinism you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).
If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. If it is more approachable for you, then make that clear and then go for it. Access trumps all! You are definitely behind if your argument is simply that you are the one to introduce this concept into the debate space. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that my debaters have read narratives and this approach can be very effective, but when not developed well it is frustrating to me.
I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and then how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language then read bad. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase.
I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.
If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.
If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.
If you adhering to a debate model a could other notes.
I’m very resistant of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.
I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.
Finally Word for All
I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.
Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!
I would prefer to be on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Please extend the arguments you make, and also provide a warrant for your claims. I know debate is super competitive, but it's also important to be respectful and nice throughout the round. PLEASE PLEASE signpost, and tell me where exactly you are on the flow, I would hate to intervene in rounds and have to extend for you.
I have been debating a lot of phil this year, but I also like LARP debate. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm still learning everyday. I'm cool with evaluating any type of argument as long as they are backed up by warrants and are extended throughout the speeches. Go at any speed you want but please be as clear as possible. If I can't understand what's being said, I'll "clear" two times before dropping speaks. I think voters and a ballot story are super important, and crystallizes the round.
Overall, I really appreciate charisma and creativity. I like when people fully get into the politician act rather than just reading off a page like a newscaster. Feel free to take creative liberties with AGDS as long as they make some sense. I'd rather you lack a bit in substance and structure but successfully lean into a ton of ethos than to read straight off the page even with technically perfect content and organization. The roleplay aspect of Congress is what differentiates it from other debate events so I appreciate when people actually play into it (but obviously content still matters).
I like grounded, people focused impacts. If you can tie back to how individual people will be help/hurt by a bill and why, I'll probably rank you high. Also, use whatever structure you want. I usually like when it's easier to follow, but I'm fine with anything and won't drop you for being creative.
I value fluency and delivery the most in authors and sponsors. Also, make sure to contextualize the legislation.
If you genuinely try to help the round progress by writing a sponsor in round, I'll definitely keep that in mind and be more forgiving of any fluency breaks (but I can probably tell when you already have a speech written and pretend like you don't just to act like a martyr).
If you're speaking after the author/sponsor, I'd like to see some clash with other speakers/questioners. If it's impact related, that's definitely a bonus. Try not to just name drop every other representative in the chamber and focus on 2-3 specific speeches (or maybe 1 if you're going earlier).
Don't rehash other people's arguments. If yours get taken, you can try to change the impact, find a new point, or switch your speech to a half-ref/crystal. I usually drop for rehash but I understand that sometimes you end up in a tough spot with bad precedence and no points, so I'll take that into consideration.
Try to avoid rehashing previous points and make sure to have a pretty unique argument for your constructive point. I don't care if you have your ref point at the beginning or end of your speech, if it's there, you're good. I'd prefer for these to be pretty late in the round, at least the 4th cycle, maybe 3rd in a smaller room.
I like seeing people learning how to crystal through trial and error so especially at locals, I'll be more lenient to anyone who tries. Try to weigh the impacts of both sides to show who wins, avoid rehash, and have some evidence. These should be the last 2 speeches in the round.
I consider POs for all ranks including first! I'll let you run the chamber, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me and we can work things out! I won't drop you if you make some small mistakes then correct yourself! It happens! I don't have a preference for any type of time signals as long as they're consistent and work for the chamber! I'd also appreciate if you could state the name/topic of each piece of legislation before we debate it, not just the number.
I appreciate POs who listen to the chamber and actually go out of their ways to create a "fast, fair, and efficient chamber" like they promise to in the speeches. You don't have to be super charismatic, I'm not, but I'll reward POs who try to connect with the chamber rather than just gaveling.
Please be supportive and polite to each other in the chamber!!! I won't drop you for being passive aggressive or intense in speeches or questions (unless you go way overboard), but I'll definitely have a problem if you act that way outside of your time on the floor. Also, I'll probably drop you for steamrolling novices.
I rank based on quality of speeches rather than quantity, but appreciate active participation in round and friendliness/willingness to help others also plays into my rankings. I'll consider questioning periods as a tiebreaker more than anything else, but I'm still listening to them.
I usually tend to favor passion and enthusiasm!
I'm totally fine if you turn your cameras off when you're not speaking or questioning so zoom doesn't lag if the tournament is fine with it!
I'm pretty chill and up for whatever. I try to be pretty fair and have spent a decent amount of the past 4 years in Congress rounds, so I'm familiar with a lot of what happens.
Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me!
REAL TOP LEVEL
+10 for a insane 2ac roast
+.5 for every joke about neil and warren, as well as tori and james also if u make fun of the lders at westwood idrc which one and westwood ncx
-20 speaks for every joke about WWNY
Hey I'm Anjaly and I'm a Junior LDer at Mcneil High School
Please be nice in round. I will give you a L25 for speaks if you are being sexist,homophobic,racist,etc. If you know your opponent is a brand new novice, don't be abusive. Try to be funny in round if you can as I'll increase speaks if you do.
I am generally a LARP debater but that being said you can still run Phil just please explain everything thoroughly. Also please signpost and weigh. If you weigh well enough I will be more inclined to vote for you. Have fun!
Add me on the email chain: email@example.com
I main DX but do IX on the side; for extempers:
Content is very important but you don't need obvious substructure. If your points make logical sense that's all that matters. If you don't explain your content properly, even if I know what you mean, you will probably get ranked down. Treat me like a lay judge that reads dailies.
- Please back stats, info, etc. with credible SOURCES: source name, date with month/day/year
* if you use cool sources like thinktanks, books, etc. you will impress me more than random dailies.
Fluency is important. Make your speech interesting and engaging. I love humor, but anything in general that draws me in is great. On the other hand, don't make your body language or tone distracting. Use hand signals/tonal variation wisely.
- Timing is kinda important-- if you go way under (<5:30 min) or way over (>7:30) I will most likely rank you down. Between 6:50 and 7:00 is *chef's kiss*
* remember extemp triangle!
- If you have a funny AGD and good on-tops, you will impress me.
Again, fluency is important. Draw me in, make the speech your own. Humor stands out, but don't force jokes or use them inappropriately!
In general, make sure you're in a well-lit room and that you are in frame.
For debate, please add me to email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Please keep your own time
Good luck! Y'all got this :)