Horace Mann Invitational
2021 — Online, NY/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Fairly standard flow judge:
- Please don't spread
- well-explained warrants >> stat dumps
- If there's a dispute on evidence at the end of the round, you can ask me to look at a card
- If something isn't responded to in the next speech, it's dropped
- ff must mirror summary
- Theory: I don't know the jargon and I'm not a huge fan of most theory args so run it at your own discretion BUT if you think your opponent is being abusive in some major way or breaking the rules then you can just explain it
- Speaks: avg is probably like 28.5 and you'll get boosted speaks (0.5-1 depending on quality) for Avatar: The Last Airbender references (make it funny pls)
If there's anything I didn't talk about here feel free to ask me before the round.
I'm currently a senior debater at Horace Mann. Please keep track of your own time and do not be abusive; I will dock your speaker points if you take extra time such that it gives you an unfair advantage. Please be respectful at all times and allow everyone to speak in cross. Also, it's sometimes difficult to hear over Zoom, so if I ask, please send me a speech doc.
Good warrants + cards > uncarded analytics > unwarranted evidence. Please collapse and weigh!
- This goes without saying, but don't be offensive or disrespectful.
- TKO is in play
- Good luck and have fun!!
I like both fun and funny things! Soooooooooooo:
+.25 speaks (and my eternal love) for every TikTok dance you do during a speech (or cross) or honestly doing anything mildly ridiculous in any speech/time you make me laugh that doesn't impact your debating ability
Look at these cute emoticons on tab!!! :
So that Sam doesn't kill me, many parts of this paradigm were written by the coolest gal on the block (who also wrote Annabelle Xing's paradigm... he does actually like TikToks and laughing a lot tho so ur chilling)
junior at horace mann
-assume I don't know anything about the topic
-tech>truth, but the more crazy your argument gets, the less likely I am going to buy it
-If you're the first speaking team, you can extend terminal defense from first rebuttal to first final focus without it being in summary. If you're the second speaking team, all defense must be in second summary.
-I'm more likely to buy uncarded logical warranting to carded, unfleshed out stat dumps.
-I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round
-signposting > off-time road maps (just tell me where you're starting)
-Weigh! Don't make me weigh for you or else you might not be pleased with my decision!
-I won't flow cross, but if you make me laugh +0.5 speaker points. Obviously, I'm not going to vote off anything that's unextended in speeches, but cross helps speaker points/framing and clarifying arguments for the rest of the round.
-This goes without saying, but sexism/racism/classism/general offensiveness are automatic 20s and probably an L.
-inspired by mr. sam chiang: do a tiktok dance in round and +0.5 speaks
-if you can make a gossip girl or tbbt reference IN SPEECH +1 speaks
Lauren Ho is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Lauren Ho's Personal Meeting Room
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 677 416 2120
Debater for National University of Mongolia '26 (he/him)
Racism, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny will result in an L.
Standard flow judge, tech>truth.
Weigh, collapse, make me not bored, be respectful, sign post, frontline in second rebuttal.
I don’t care about cross as long as you aren’t disrespectful.
Keep your own time. Collapse and extend offense through summary and FF or I will be sad :(
If you run theory you're probably going to get dropped. (Unless you run disclosure, but don't disclose. If you do that you're getting picked up.)
Have good impact and good link.
If you pronounce my last name correctly I will give you 29 speaks. If you call me "Lord Emperor Supreme Judge Karpf", while also pronouncing my last name correctly I will give you 30 speaks.
I would greatly appreciate it if you start speeches with "3...2...1... BLASTOFF", and end speeches with "3...2...1... LANDING INITIATED." Thanks in advance.
Lastly, I agree with everything in Chuck Stubbins' Paradigm. Please read to fully understand my judging preferences.
This is a paradigm that some of my friends made that has some funny memes, and covers some basic stuff. But for what I want in every speech and the round in general, please look at my debate partner Henry's paradigm. If there is conflicting information about what to do in speeches, default to Henry's. Please look over it, and be sure to ask me any questions about it before round.
Also, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (Any behavior or comments of this nature will make you automatically lose the round and get the lowest speaker points possible)
Any references to Harry Potter, Star Wars, or if you do anything that is funny will earn you speaker points. (But only worry about this after the important debate stuff in the paradigm. This is just so you have a little bit of fun.)
I'm Henry (He/Him/His), and I look forward to judging your round. Below are some things you should know about me and my preferences as a judge. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
1. I consider myself a flow judge. Tech > Truth. This is my second year debating on the national circuit, so I know how to flow relatively well. I will vote off the flow and default to whichever arguments have the least ink on them, but good implication and weighing can definitely win me over, even on more muddled arguments.
2. Please have good evidence ethics. Evidence ethics are key. Add me to the email chain and expect me to look at all evidence exchanged. If your evidence is good, I'm more likely to buy your arguments. If you miscut/misconstrue evidence, I will not only probably drop the argument, but I'll also take all of your other arguments with a heavy grain of salt.
3. Please signpost. It makes my life as a judge easier and the round less muddled. Telling me exactly where you are on the flow is especially important if you're speaking fast, since I might miss one or two of your responses while I search for where you are.
4. Please weigh. You'll hear this a lot, and for good reason: weighing is the single most important thing you can do to win my ballot. The earlier you start weighing, the greater the likelihood you win the round. But the way you weigh matters. I have a really hard time voting off blippy weighing, like "We outweigh on scope because our impact is global" or "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact affects millions." Aside from the lack of specificity, the biggest issue is the lack of comparative analysis. You need to give me a comparison between your opponents' impact/link and your impact/link and take their argument into account. An example of good comparative prerequisite weighing would look something like: "Our terrorism impact always comes before their impact on economic growth, since terrorism decreases global investor confidence and prevents the flow of goods in and out of countries. That means that the only world where economic growth is possible is the world of the neg, and so when evaluating this round, you always look to our terrorism argument first. If we win it, we should win the round." Notice the warranting (why terrorism stops economic growth) and the implication (why this weighing matters in the context of the ballot). Strong weighing has both.
5. Please extend case in summary and FF. I'm not a stickler for super detailed extensions; just re-explain the argument you're going for in summary and FF. I probably won't evaluate your argument if it isn't extended at all.
6. Please frontline. You must frontline offense (turns and DAs) in 2nd rebuttal, or the response will extend clean through on my flow. You don't have to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but it might be in your best interest (hint hint wink wink). Of course, please frontline in summary and final focus. If a solid response is dropped by you and extended by your opponents, I won't evaluate your argument.
7. Please weigh all rebuttal offense. If you want me to vote for you on turns or dis-ads/ads, please weigh them versus your opponent's case. For example, on the Medicare-for-All topic, let's say neg reads a link-turn about M4A leading to doctor shortages because of lower pay in response to aff's argument about increasing healthcare access. If neg doesn't do weighing or comparative analysis for me, I have no way of knowing if the amount of access lost because of doctor shortages is greater than the access gained through universal healthcare, or vice-versa. Chances are, I'll default to aff's case argument, since it is probably better warranted. Unless neg gives me this weighing, I'll treat the turn as a defensive response. That goes for both teams and all topics.
8. Please collapse. On offense and on defense. On 1-2 arguments. In summary and in final focus. Collapsing crystalizes the round and gives you the opportunity to strengthen the arguments you've already made. Do it.
9. Please be respectful! Be respectful to me and your opponents the whole round. Debate must be an inclusive space, and it's your job as a debater and my job as a judge to ensure that the round is so. On my part, I'll do my best to recognize, check, and prevent any of the implicit biases that I have (as does everyone!) from influencing my decision. On your part, I expect you to be polite and respectful during crossfire, especially. Don't interrupt your opponents, take turns asking and answering questions, etc.
10. And most importantly, have fun!
That's it from me. Again, if you have questions about my paradigm or anything else, I'll be happy to answer them before the round starts. Good luck, and I'm excited for a great round!
ZOOM FOR APRIL 6th:
Alex Nagin is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Alex Nagin's Personal Meeting Room
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 351 477 7362
National University of Mongolia '26
Rhodes Scholar, Harvard Dentistry graduate, Deputy National Security advisor.
Before I get into any part of this paradigm, if you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, ableist, or anything else that targets someone's identity, you will be dropped, no questions asked.
I'm down for weird/niche arguments, anything can win if you weigh it well. Also, I think theory/K's are fine as long as they are used to actually advance and develop our understanding of why certain aspects of debate/the resolution are flawed and not because you think it's an easier path to my ballot.
Please signpost clearly so I know where you are on the flow. Extend, and do comparative weighing/analysis too. It's not helpful to me if you just say that you're winning the round because you impact to more people.
Be careful about frontlining every turn that the other teams read, if its a really messy round that neither team is really winning I may be inclined to vote on a turn/de-link that was dropped in summary.
truth>tech. Not many judges have this philosophy (maybe some parent ones do) but I believe strongly in it. Debate should be an educational activity that assesses world topics on a realistic level. NSDA selects resolutions that have true arguments on both sides that can win you the round. Evaluating rounds on simply tech is bad for education and leads debaters down rabbit holes that aren't constructive to building an intellectual understanding of the resolution at hand.
Please note that I really hate when debaters go too hard on perceptual dominance in CX. Just have a fair and civil discussion about why you think their arguments are flawed.
Default speaks 28.5
Bubble tea references IN SPEECH +0.5 speaker points.
Mongolia references are an instant 30. No I'm not kidding. I am fascinated with the country and I would like you to incorporate it into your speech. However, I will only give you a 30 if I feel this is the case. I'm not afraid of low point wins.
- Be annoying
- Talk over people
- Say "game over"
Also I agree with everything in Chuck Stubbins' Paradigm:
"I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE HIGH FALUTIN' THINGS Y'ALL TALKIN' ABOUT BUT I CAN TELL YOU I AM GREATLY CONCERNED WITH HOW THESE THINGS IMPACT THE BUS ROUTE I GOTTA DRIVE AT 4:45AM EVERY MORNIN' TO GET THESE KIDS TO SCHOOL
LOT OF KIDS TALK ABOUT TEA, WHICH IS FINE WITH ME AS LONG AS YOU BOILED IT TO LET ALL THE SUGAR GET IN THERE OR ELSE I DON'T WANT IT
I HAVEN'T HAD A PERM SINCE KENNY LOGGINS SANG DANGER ZONE AT MY WEDDING, SO I AM UNFAMILIAR AT BEST
I AM OPEN TO CRITIQUE, BUT I MUST SAY THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN HELPIN' A MAN AND LEAVIN' HIM TO FEND FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST A PACK OF FERAL HOGS WITHOUT PROPER ASSISTANCE *RIP BARTHOLOMEW "SCOOTER" JENKINS* AS SUCH MY TOLERANCE FOR ANY RABBLE ROUSIN' WITH THE CRITICISMS IS QUITE LOW OUT OF RESPECT TO THE JENKINS FAMILY, LORD BLESS
MY BUS HAS A GOVERNOR ON IT LIMITING ME TO A ROBUST SPEED OF 55 MILES AN HOUR, IF YOU'RE READING SO FAST AS TO GET THROUGH THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE I CAN MAKE IT THROUGH A LOOP IN THE BUS DROP OFF, YOU'RE GOING TOO FAST.
NO LOLLYGAGGIN', DILLYDALLYIN', BUMBLESCOOTIN', KNICKER-KNOTTIN', EGG-SUCKIN', DILL-PICKLIN', GOOSE-GETTIN', HOT DOGGIN' OR HATE SPEECHIN' OF ANY KIND. WORLD FULL OF PLENTY OF RASCALS AND DEMONS, YA AIN'T GOTTA BE ONE OF 'EM GOD BLESS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESTIGE OF LEARNING HOW YOUR ARGUMENTS IMPACT MY WORLD OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND WISH YOU THE MOST HIGHEST OF PRAISE UNDER THE SUN.
Y'ALL STAY FINER THAN A FROG'S HAIR SPLIT THREE WAYS NOW."
I would like to be entertained!
I’m not a truth judge - I judge based on how you debate not what you say
I'm really not a fan of theories or Ks, that being said if you want to run one make it either super funny or really good and understandable
I have no qualms about calling cards and calling you out on evidence manipulation, if you think your opponents are misusing or manipulating evidence don't be afraid to ask me to call it
My RFD will be comprehensive and not sugar-coated, I want to make you better debaters not cozy debaters
also please signpost and weigh and all that jazz
I will give bonus speaks for references and quoting movies (star wars especially)
Final Focus is v important - don't introduce new args (you'll get dropped). Don't try to win an entire arg in final focus (it won't end well). Solidify your link chain and terminalize your impacts clearly so I know what I'm voting off of
Meeting ID: 507 983 3269
Hello youngsters. I am an inCREDIBLY proud mother goosling of 5 beautiful children (you may have seen other members of the Xing family before, or been judged by my brother Matthew).
I have just 4 simple rules that I would like debaters to adhere to when they are in my presence.
1. I believe the most impressive debaters are capable of memoriXING everything. Please do not go up in the first speech and be READxing something. What a terrible first impression you can make.
2. Please ensure that your phone does not ring, or go xing xing xing at the end of the speech. Your speaks will be ding ding dinged.
3. As the winter falls upon us, I would love to watch a performance Xingle belles instead of the summary speech. Who needs to re-hear silly prewritten arguments anyways? I will ONLY listen to new arguments in the last speech as those have the most merit.
4. If you say ANYTHING BAD about my sweet sweet cousin Mr. Xing Xing Ping, beware of our wrath.
annabelle's real paradigm (so she doesn't kill me):
be a cool bean. has a low tolerance for any form of disrespect. please sign post, extend warranting + impacts always, and weigh/metaweigh a ton! have good vibes like this paradigm.
Check out this doc for my paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x4c435WCtxezsvpnnxdkNSCkKqq-dtcp_qK8dfVf4Bs/edit