The Longhorn Classic
2021 — Austin, TX/US
World Schools Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I did WSDC and whatnot in high school, so I'm familiar with the norms of worlds judging and round expectations. A couple of specific things: (1) Make sure your arguments are properly mechanized. The term fiat is thrown around in world worlds too often without proper explanation or justification. I like interesting models, just explain them well and make sure they're reasonable. (2) Please impact things. This is straight-forward, but if you have an argument, tell me why it matters relative to the debate, regardless of how woke the tag of the argument is. (3) Weigh! Be incredibly explicit about why one argument is more important than another in the back-half. You don't have to win all/ the majority of arguments in world schools, just the most important ones!!
I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.
I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.
If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.
Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.
WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion
Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.
WSD- I love the passion and big picture
Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.
WSD-Don't even think about speed!
Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."
Framework and Definitions
The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.
Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.
Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.
School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):
The Hockaday School
Years Judging/Coaching (required)
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)
Check all that apply
__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level
__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year (required)
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)
WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)
I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.
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. (required)
It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.
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? (required)
For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.
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? (required)
I do that in the style section.
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? (required)
I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.
How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)
I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)
First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!
Years in Debate: 20+
Types of Debate: Policy, CEDA/NDT, NPDA/NPTE, LD, PFD, Worlds
I like Worlds. Worlds is what debate should be. I am an active judge in the sense that I do not respond well to two particular things. First, trying to import the argumentative method of other formats. Second, telling me that the other team didn't do X or Y so should lose. Of course I want you to point out deficiencies in the other team's tactics or strategy, but you also need a reason why you win!
Other than that, I do my best to look at the argument development in the debate and who best answers the question of the motion.
BTW- my policy for points in the virtual world is that debaters can ask that they are made as a verbal or nonverbal signal. Relegating points to a chat is not in line with this policy and I will penalize speakers who do this.
This is under revision.
I have noticed that I don't endorse technique over truth as much as my colleagues. This doesn't mean that I don't care about the structure of the debate. It means that just because an argument is dropped you don't automatically win.
1) I guess I am either suffering from hearing loss or people have become too unclear to flow, but I cannot understand your max speed. You must slow down for me. You don't have to be normal speed, but blowing through your underview of spikes at 400wpm means that I won't have much flowed and won't really be inclined to vote on those arguments.
2) You need to differentiate tags, cites and cards. A pause works, so does "end card" or "My next argument is.." If I can't figure out whats the words of an author and what are your words you're gonna have a bad time.
3) I would prefer it if I didn't hear performance or micropolitical arguments. Its not that I don't enjoy those items in my non-debate life, but in debate they tend to introduce a level of personal investment that I don't care to engage in.
4) I'm fine with policy arguments, traditional LD or whatever you want to call what you do as long as you can explain it to me. I do not enjoy "tricky" debate or other techniques that are premised on "You didn't answer this blip theory argument that says you have to answer it, I win." Will I vote for you if you do that, maybe, but your points will be low. I would prefer you to engage in an actual debate instead of a game of mistakes. I've heard many judges say that they reward technical debate, and they has its merits to an extent, but I tend to vote for arguments that are explained and warranted over arguments that simply exist and are extended on the flow.
5) I am more than happy to discuss my decision if time allows after the debate. I haven't shared speaker points in the past. As a norm, my range is 27-30.
6) I will not vote on 1AC spikes or underviews; abuse must occur and THEN you can make your theory arguments. I will not vote on disclosure theory good/bad at all.