Arkansas Forensics and Debate State Championship
2021 — NSDA Campus, AR/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a lay judge.
DON'T SPREAD. I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so that you get the best possible score. I know that doing these debates online has thrown extra technical difficulties into the mix, so it is more important than ever not to spread. It glitches up and I'm unable to understand what you are saying.
Signpost well so I can flow properly.
Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.
Congressional Debate I love-
-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly
-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)
-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure
-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along
-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.
I really dislike-
-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.
-Spreading this is congress
-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me
-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying
Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-
Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger
Arguments that are constructive and flow really well
Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior
I really dislike-
When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, use it.
THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO IN ANY DEBATE STYLE:
If you are speaking on the behalf of another group of people (another race, religion, gender, ect.)and you don't have evidence supporting that, my respect drops immediately. I would rather the evidence be from someone that is actually of that group as well. There have been so many instances where people just make stuff up about another religion or something with nothing to back up their statement. If you do this in congress, you'll get the lowest speech score from me. In any other debate style, its going to be very hard to gain my respect as a judge back.
If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com
In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.
I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.
I am a fairly new judge to debate.
I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.
I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.
Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!
For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.
Hello. I’m Cassandra Brewster. I have been a debate judge for 2 years, however, I still consider myself somewhat of a novice judge. Introduced to the debate world by my oldest son, I find judging Congress to be my favorite, but have experience with other styles. I am also a first class introvert and get anxious in “ice breaker” situations.
Speaking – I prefer clear and concise speaking over “spreading”. If I cannot hear, understand, or follow along, I will have a hard time judging.
Arguments – Present well and sound like you know the topic. I can usually tell when you are reading someone else’s speech, which is okay, but do your best to make it your own.
Evidence – Very rarely are old sources relevant, so use the most current data available. I do enjoy hearing the sources.
I’m old school and will take hand written notes before I update Tabroom. I am paying attention, though. Do your best and good luck!
george mason '22
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
i don't care what you do, just have fun. i was a 2A/1N in high school and i'm a 2N/1A in college. most of my experience is in doing K debate, but i do not have any strong ideological dispositions and care primarily about the quality of debating.
specificity, argumentative innovation, relevant examples, in-round presence, good cards, and quality cx's are all things that i appreciate and will be rewarded with speaker points.
*i have some problems with audio processing; speed at the expense of clarity will make it impossible for me to flow.
Updated 10/11/21 for the Heart of Texas Invitational
Hi, I’m Holden (He/They)!
Jack C. Hays ‘20
The University of North Texas ’24 (Go Mean Green!)
Put me on the email chain please: email@example.com
Worlds, Policy and PF Paradigm is Near the End
Please give me policy and k rounds, even well developed phil. I would enjoy substance please
Random Thoughts (Updated as Thunk):
- I didn’t know I had to say this but please don’t say the n-word in ANY form if you aren’t black, this is your one and only warning. Yes this includes if the word is inside a piece of evidence, just bracket something in, or just don’t say it please
- Throughout the year I have become annoyed by individuals spewing out blippy arguments that only minimally meet the threshold of an argument. As such, I'm going to be a bit stricter for argument development.
Who is Holden?
I did debate for 4 years at Jack C. Hays. Two of those were in policy, the other two in LD. Even though I don't think competitive success equates to being a good judge, I had some success on the circuit, and got pretty far at some bid tournaments. I now attend the University of North Texas, where I study psychology, philosophy, and political science, and will be doing NFA-LD in the fall.
If it means anything, I've coached everything from k debaters that go for identity related literature and pomo literature, to phil students who I have helped write tricks aff for. Meaning that anything you read in front of me, as long as it has a warrant, is fine.
You can refer to me as Holden (what I prefer most), or judge. However, I would very much like it if you left anything more formal (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.) as it makes me very uncomfortable and is rather impersonal in my opinion (Update: For the future, I will be docking .1 speaks every time you say that in reference to me because it a. reflects that you haven't read my paradigm or b. you have and just don't respect my opinion).
Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). I currently coach Carmel CS, Midlothian AC, Perry JA, Sandra Day O'Connor WW, Sidwell SW, Vestavia Hills GJ, Village JN, and Westlake AK, and consult for Lynbrook and Cabot High School.
I have previously been affiliated with/have coached, or have been contracted by Evergreen Valley (on a team based level), and then McMillen AW, and Ayala AM (who I worked with on an individual level).
In terms of ideology, I'm pretty closely aligned with Patrick Fox, however I am much more willing to vote for phil positions and tricks.
TLDR: You do you, just be able to have a coherent argument, don't be violent, and have the ability to explain it.
Strike Guide, this is not a list of what I prefer to see, rather what I think I could adjudicate most fairly (ideally I would like to be a one for all of these, but I have yet to explore all of these forms of debate to the extent that I would like):
K - 1
LARP - 1
Clash Debates (phil v k, policy v k, policy v phil, etc.) - 1
Theory/Topicality - 1/2
Phil - 2
Tricks - 2
Trad - 4/Strike
Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate :)
I flow on my laptop, but am not the fastest typer, so I would put me at a 7.5 or 8/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics please
Respect your opponents pronouns or I won't respect your speaks (I have given out 20's because of this, seriously just respect people)
I flow spark on a separate page, this may not matter to you, but it matters to me. Sign post accordingly
How has he voted?
- Last year, I judged over 200 rounds, sitting 3 times on panels, voting aff 56% of the time (because 1. skill difference between competitors, or 2. the 2NR most of the time lacks weighing or catching all of the 1AR argument), I averaged a 28.45 for speaks
If at any time, a debate has become unsafe for you, and I have not noticed it, please let me know. Whether this is through an email, or some other metric, just please let me know. I try my best to be vigilant in round, but sometimes I may not notice, and if it seems as such please let me know so I can do my best to correct any danger the round may be putting a debater in.
What is debate to him?
I take debate very seriously insofar as I contain a genuine enjoyment from it. I enjoyed competing, but I especially enjoy being on the other side of a ballot, and I also enjoy teaching. That being said, debate is an educational game in which my role is to evaluate the arguments as presented in the least interventionist way possible, I'm probably a lot less ideological than most judges and that's because I do not think it is my place to deem arguments valid or invalid. That means that at the end of the day, you do you to the full extent. If you do what you do best, I will do my best to evaluate those arguments fairly (granted that the exceptions are arguments that are problematic and arguments with no warrant). There are two concrete rules of debate - 1. There is always a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. None of my preferences should matter because you should be making those arguments for me.
What does he like?
I like debates that require little to no intervention. The way you can achieve that is weighing and making your arguments easy to flow (so label them like 1, 2, 3 a-point, b-point, c-point). I am agonistic about content, so do what it takes to get the dub. Warranted arguments are key to the dub though, that means that I only evaluate arguments that are complete (claim, warrant, impact). Collapsing in your speeches is how you get the ability to make good arguments, it shows room for explanation and proficiency that the game known as debate.
A framing mechanism to help me filter the round, whether that be a standard, role of the ballot, impact calc, or fairness v education weighing. All of them help me decide the debate and what should be preferred.
To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
What does he dislike?
The opposite of above.
Being exclusionary to novices, reading K's, CP's, and DA's is fine but if there's any kind of situation where you ask them about any sort of theory spikes and they ask "what's a theory spike," don't read spikes such as "evaluate the debate after the 1NC" or "no aff analytics." That extremely upsets me and your speaks WILL get tanked
Not weighing, if you can't tell by now, weighing is how you win in front of me
When people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1"
When people ask me if they can take prep time, like it's your prep why do I need to be the arbiter of what you do with it?
What will he never vote on?
Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater in the room (yes, that means shoes theory is a no go).
Arguments that say a form of oppression is good, this is the one that will get you downed with a 25.
Arguments that contradict what was said in CX (it is binding folks, just be a good person and don’t lie).
Arguments warranted by out of round occurrences are cool if they don’t devolve into ad homs (see the strikes K read by Greenhill SK in 2017 NDCA finals).
Self-serving role of the ballots are cool, if you can’t beat them then just get better at answering them.
Cheezits are better than goldfish.
Tricks debates is a legitimate form of debate.
Now onto more specific things argument wise-
They're great, I coach them, I run them, and I enjoy judging them. I think that they're a great for the debate space by entering a new form of engagement. I don't think that they have to be constrained by their relation to the resolution, but I do think that they should defend doing something. This means that you should explain what the aff does or else presumption is incredibly persuasive. For those running them, explain what your aff is, implicate your framing, and just be able to explain everything. For those negating these aff's, don't concede the case page, and don't be afraid to run refreshing strategies, I promise I'll enjoy them!
Yup, I vote on it (often too). I think I'm aff leaning ideologically, but that doesn't matter if you don't leave anything up to interpretation. Affirmatives win because the neg concedes key framing issues (the framing debate, weighing, an impact turn, etc.), or just doesn't do any work on the line by line. Negative teams win in front of me because the aff doesn't do enough weighing or leverage the aff in a strategic manner.
Fairness isn't an impact, but it's an internal link
My order of favorite impacts goes clash > fairness > advocacy skills
The TVA is really important to me, blippy ones make me sad, contextual ones make me happy. I view these as counterplans in the sense that they resolve offense of the counter-interp so please explain them as such
Impact turns to T are fine, and I'll vote on them
Here are my defaults, but are not set in stone at all -
- Competing interps > reasonability
- Drop the debater > drop the argument
- No RVI > RVI
Topicality is fine, and some of my favorite debates to judge. Definitions quality matters, and having a definition with the intent to define is even better. Unlike theory, arbitrary interpretations probably don't resolve their offense, you need a grounded vision of the topic, not something like "your interp plus my aff." Reasonability most definitely needs a brightline please. Going for the impact turn to T when able to is really underrated, and a valuable strategy if employed correctly. Slowing down a bit on these debates is key, otherwise I will most likely miss something. Weighing in these debates will help everyone, especially me when deciding the round. Condo is good probably, but can be easily convince otherwise (leniency switches with >2 condo advocacies). I lean neg on most counterplan theory as well (that flips if there is not a solvency advocate).
Up in the air on Nebel, just be able to explain your semantics warrants and contextualize them to the topic. Otherwise just go for the limits standard.
For counterplan theory, here are my leanings (they're slight but they exist):
- Counterplans with solvency advocates no matter the type = good
- PICs = good
- Process CP's = good
- Consult CP's = bad
- Actor CP's = good
- States CP's = good
I think that you need to read fairness and education voters (or some other voter) because otherwise I don't know what the impact to the shell is
Go for whatever shell you want, I will evaluate it, barring these exceptions:
- Theory that includes the appearance/clothing of another debater (so no shoes theory)
- Shells where the interp was checked before round, and there is verifiable evidence that it was checked
- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said that they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, this is especially non-negotiable
Really cool with this, clear argument interaction and weighing is key in these debates. Evidence quality also matters in these debates more so than others (namely because of the causality that is associated with this style). I default yes judgekick, you just need to tell me to do so in the 2NR. Explanation of link chains is important because often times teams have poor explanation of them. If a link chain is conceded, then extend it briefly (meaning I want at least a condensed version of the impact story) and implicate it, saying "extend x it was conceded" is not sufficient. Counterplans are viewed through sufficiency framing until told otherwise. I need to know what the world of the permutation looks like at least a little bit in the first speech it is introduced. A few good, robust internal links into 2-3 impacts > a lot of bad internal links into 7 different impacts. The DA turning case and it's analysis matters a lot to me, do the work and make it make sense.
I tend to read evidence more in these debates, I use your interpretation of the evidence to frame how I look at it, do with that as you will
Without real meta-weighing, I default probability > magnitude > timeframe, this shouldn't matter if you do your job correctly
Contrary to what many might think about me, I am very comfortable in policy rounds. I did policy in high school and now do NFA LD in college which is just one person policy. Your lingo will not be new/unfamiliar to me, I just think that these rounds could/do get very messy without good 2nr/2ar judge instruction
This is where most of my debate experience has been, and the type of debate I am most comfortable judging, I went for the K a lot. My ideal K 1NC (if it's one off) would have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and a role of the ballot (along with weighing on the aff page as to why it's a prior question). Having links contextual to the aff, whether that be to the resolution, the reps, or the framing, is good and helps with strength of link. Winning framing for both sides is a crucial part of strategy, and controls the direction of the debate (but does not guarantee the dub). I may know the buzzwords you’re using but always be able to explain what the heck you’re saying. Don’t run a k in front of me just because you think I’ll like it, because bad k debate makes me sad and will make your speaks reflect such. Explain the perm in the first responsive speech please.
2NR's need to tell me what the alt does
K tricks are cool, just make sure you actually warrant them
Floating PIK's are ok, just make sure to hint at them in the 1NC at least
Here’s a list of literature bases I am read up on and know quite well:
- Deleuze and Guattari
- Hardt and Negri
- Stock K’s (cap, security, etc.)
- Reps K’s
Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat/am learning:
A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.
I'm good for these, I've coached debaters that have gone for tricks, and I've helped cut some tricks affs. Innovation of tricks are great because it shows that you aren't recycling the same old stuff.
These are fine, and can be quite enjoyable if executed correctly (that doesn't mean that you have the right to just extend arguments without implications or warrants). I tend to think that when done well that these debates are some of the most technical and clean rounds to judge. This doesn’t mean do it because you think I’ll like you more, because these debates can also be extremely messy. Messy tricks debates make me sad, clean and efficient tricks debates make me happy. Please slow down on your 27 point underviews, yes I think they're interesting, but I need to be able to flow them and I can't do that if you're blitzing through them. That doesn't mean go at like regular talking speed, but go at like 70% speed when you're blitzing through those aprioris please. Being straight up, delineating them as easily identifiable, and making these rounds clean is how you get my ballot in these debates.
My threshold for these arguments also depends on you being straight up about them. If you lie about a version of an aff during disclosure and I have proof of this, my threshold for answering these tricks goes down, and so does my threshold for answering a misdisclosure shell.
Carded and well developed tricks > "member equals body part, and body parts can't reduce IPP"
I prefer well developed syllogisms with cards over your analytical phil dump. This is not to say I won't evaluate them fairly, I just think they're better set up to generate offense
After coaching several students that go for phil, and judging phil debates frequently I am happier to say that I'm good for these debates. Syllogisms should be warranted and implicated in a way that shows their impact in the first speech (yes, saying solves skep for a skep trigger is enough for this threshold). Going for and impacting out a certain the 1-2 justifications needs to involve weighing (this also means collapse in these debates too!).
In phil v util debates, I think that util debaters often undercover the line by line, or just don't really layer enough in these debates, phil debaters often concede a crucial justification or undercover extinction first, so both sides be warned.
In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates
Hijacks that are shorter than 15 seconds are often unwarranted, and blippy, call them out as such.
Blitzing through the line by line in these debates is annoying and will inevitably make me miss a warrant. Im not asking you to go at a conversational pace but be a LITTLE bit reasonable
I am studying philosophy in college as well, which means I am reading a lot about authors that you might be reading. This means that I am antiquated with a variety of philosophy literature.
I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.
Here’s a list of literature bases I know confidently:
- Moral Particularism
Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat:
- Virtue Ethics
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:
1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening
2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate
This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.
Yes, I can judge this. But I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.
I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.
Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says
For the policy kids-
- I judge circuit LD a lot (and I mean A LOT), on there I judge nothing but T, cp/da, and k debates. I can handle speed, and I will understand the intricacies of whatever argument you want to run
- Sign post please
- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)
- Yes open cross
- Yes K-Aff's
- Yes T-FW
- Fairness is an internal link and not an impact
- in terms of pref ratings:
Any sort of clash debates (both policy aff v the k, and k aff v t-fwk) - 1
K v K - 1
Pure policy rounds - 2
For the World Schools Kids-
- I don't have TOO much experience in this, but that being said, when I did worlds I was somewhat successful (15th speaker and dubs at the 2020 NSDA tournament, went undefeated in prelims)
- Countermodels are ok, but need to be contextualized about how they a. compete with the proposition, b. solve the props impacts
- I still think that tech > truth, but this becomes muddled a bit in worlds given the nature of the activity. I think that warranting is still important, but if an argument is conceded, the threshold for explanation becomes a lot lower, BUT it needs to be implicated and impacted out
- 3rd speakers need to collapse and weigh a BUNCH. I was the 3rd speaker all of my rounds, so this is arguably one of the more important speeches to me
- Spreading can be ok? I don't know how it would work given worlds structure and nature but I'm definitely down for spreading
- Overall, do what you do best and I will do my best to evaluate the round accordingly
For the PF Kids-
- Never did pf in high school, but am somewhat familiar with the event
- Defense is not sticky, extend your arguments please
- It makes the most sense for proper refutations to be saved for the summary's but at the same time the policy mind in me says to respond to them, so I will leave that up to judge instruction
- Yes theory is fine, just be clear on the abuse story
- Yes your progressive arguments are also fine, just explain them in an efficient manner
- Yes speed is fine, just be clear P L E A S E
Across over 100+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.45 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy
A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges
I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below
They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -
29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament
29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims
28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least
28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool
27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on
27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on
Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it
Challenges (Max up to 1 point):
- Bring me coffee with cream and sugar = +.5
- Come into the room and shout "rev up those fryers" loud enough for people outside the room to hear = +.5
- If you send pictures of your cute pets in the doc, +.1-.5 depending on how cute I deem them (no snakes please, I have a phobia of them and this will get your speaks docked half a point)
Other ways to just boost your speaks:
- Be pleasant (not in the artificial "hi judge how are you doing" way, but like just be vibey i guess??)
- Humor inserted into your speeches in an organic way
- Good strategic choices that make my job easier
If you have anymore questions about my paradigm, please don't be afraid to email me or ask me in the room.
Hey! Add me to the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a traditional debater but am getting more comfortable with progressive debate. That being said, I'm not the judge to run your super progressive case in front of.
1. Speed - I'm not a huge fan of spreading so please take your speed down a few levels in front of me. If you must spread, do so at your own risk and read the room before you do - if it's late at night, don't yell/spread at me.
2. Ks/Tricks - don't understand them so don't run them
3. Theory - I don't understand most theory and think the majority of the time people read unnecessary/frivolous theory. Unless there is clear abuse happening in the round, don't read theory. Topicality is good and if argued well and when necessary, I'll vote on it.
4. CPs/Disads - I enjoy these and think they're a good strategy. If you're going to run them, defend them.
5. Framework - this is what makes LD different from other types of debate and I expect you to use. In your last speech, give me voters/weighing/framework and make it clear why I should vote for you.
6. CX - I really enjoy cross and definitely pay attention. That being said, I don't flow it so bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow. I will hold you to what you said in cross. Please be courteous to your opponent but as long as you're not being offensive, I'm pretty lenient on cross. Don't be afraid to push them to explain their case/get the answer your looking for.
Read my facial expression - I'm a pretty expressive person. If I look confused, please clear up your point. Nodding/smiling means I like/am following your point.
I believe that Congress focuses on speaking clearly and well more than any other type of debate. Because of this, the better you speak, the better I will rank you. Have sources in your speech! You saying something does not make it credible/true. Please be polite during questioning but that doesn't mean you have to be timid.
Evidence is important, don't make baseless claims. I appreciate organized, line by line rebuttals with signposting. If nothing else, this will get you good speaks. Weighing is super important, particularly in your last speeches. I should know exactly why I'm voting for you in order to get my ballot.
Final Focus should have impact weighing! Please be respectful of your opponents during cross. Cross is for asking questions, not personally attacking opponents or making statements.
Overall, I enjoy good clash, speaking, and cross. Please be kind to your opponents!
Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:
To start, my credentials are as follows:
-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate
-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament
-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.
-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress
With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.
Now, what does it take to win my ballot?
I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.
-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)
-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.
-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.
-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*
-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.
-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.
-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.
-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality
-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.
Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.
Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.
Preferred forms: Congressional, IPDA
Disliked Forms: Policy
LRC 2022 2N/1A (best position)
Qualed to the TOC 2020-2021
ye, email chain: email@example.com
I'm a tech K debater
I assume I will be in a lot of KvK rounds but to make this clear I am not biased for the K team in K-Aff v Policy or Policy v K debates. I will vote for the team that has won the round through the core issues collapsed down to by both teams and at worst my knowledge of the lit might make the explanation threshold lower but not the threshold for instruction.
Top Level (Descending order)
Judge Intervention/Help is the most frustrating thing as a debater so pls pls pls do good judge instruction so I don't have to do work that wasn't done by the 2NR/2AR
Tech >>>> Truth -> saying that a team "dropped X" does not prove the validity or truth of X if a warrant is not extended or explained so give me one or two lines of warrant and an additional two for what that means for the debate.
I feel slimy evaluating your embedded clash. Let me explain: I love K-Tricks and Overviews with offense but there needs to be some clarity to these arguments in the 2NR. If applied properly in the 2NR after being embedded in the 2NC on the line-by-line or at the top then I will gladly evaluate it but if still ambiguous I can't guarantee its importance in my decision.
*will judge death good and impact turn debates*
evidence quality has a high standard in my mind but I am only evaluating arguments extrapolated by the debaters from their cards and not the other way around.
re-highlightings have to be read to be evaluated and don't 'insert graph' me.
Speech, Prep, and Cross-X Time are non-negotiable. Who is speaking during that time is.
Clarity, Eye contact, and emphasis do wonders for speaks.
ins and outs are cool
Mark your own cards and time your own speeches and prep
All of my preferences aren't strict lines to adapt to -- pls debate how you always do. I try to limit my predispositions as each round is premised upon what the debaters want not me but in the end, tabula rasa just doesn't exist -- I am here to evaluate everything including Policy v Policy while I might not be better than the hacks and my partner Joe. Debate is a pedagogical space that can be a multiplicity of things based on the round and I am here to be stimulated by outlandish and interesting rounds that deviate from what is considered normal so do your best at catching my attention!
1 or 2 for you -- read a K-Aff all my career
Direction of the topic or impact-turn it idrc but a counter-interp on FW > no interp
Key to getting my ballot v FW is to have one well-explained piece of offense whether DA or impact turn that is resolved by the counter-interp that either a. outweighs the neg's offense or b. has defense against their offense while also having a robust answer to their defense like SSD & TVA
Aff solvency filters the weight of your offense on FW -- if the neg does good case analysis that limits aff solvency then the 2AR will have an uphill battle by nature on both the case and the FW flow (I look at case before FW)
Key to my ballot v Ks is to win either a. your theory of power and outweighs b. link-turn w alt solvency deck c. perm
ROB & ROJ are useful framing mechanisms for debates (having an understanding of what the ballot does for the aff is preferable) -- don't get me wrong they are self-serving and arbitrary but their concession/technical loss can be damning for the negatives overall strategy
Pls don't fiat the K-Aff (methodologically different from imagining decol and Afro-Futurism)
Don't try to solve an overarching structure but be realistic about the aff does
FW/T-USFG v K-Aff
2 or 3 here -- If you covered the 2AC & 1AR line-by-line accurately I'll give u +0.3
Procedural impacts like fairness and clash are much more convincing than skills and education -- whether or not fairness is impact is determined by the debate. "Intrinsic Good" is two words that aren't a substitute for warranted analysis on why fairness is good in debate.
Key to my ballot v C/I K-Affs is to go for at most two impacts with strong internal link that proves the pedagogical value and potential of debate is maximized under your model. Ideally having defense to the aff's model whether that's the TVA or SSD makes it significantly easier to pull the trigger for the negative in close rounds but you can also go the outweighs route. Any DA (small schools, dogmatism etc.) won on FW serves as a solvency deficit for the affirmative model that bolsters your interp -- severely underutilized in FW debates.
Key to my ballot v Impact Turn K-Affs is to go for at most two impacts with strong internal link that proves the pedagogical value and potential of debate is maximized under your model compared to blanket offense that can't be resolved at all. Winning the TVA or SSD is devastating in these debates as it nulls all the aff's offense.
Additionally, you should tell me what of the AFF's offenses you solve and why the risk of your impact outweighs the small part you might not solve.
Cap K v K-Aff
1 here -- love method v method and materiality
Framing is key in this debate whether impact, materiality, or root cause so both sides need to be both forwarding your own arg and negating the other teams
Can the alt solve the aff? Yes
Does it always? No
Link Specificity filters applicability of Aff Link-Turn so at least try to add link nuance to your generic links
Off v K-Aff
This year is weird. I am grateful that we get the chance to see each other virtually instead of having our activity sidelined for the entire year. Let's make the best out of the 20/21 season!
I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)
ONE DIAMOND COACH:
In 14 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Worlds School and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.
In the past 16 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 6 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, World Schools Debate, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.
I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions, Lincoln-Douglas.
TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.
This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.
My View on debate:
It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine, indict and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.
I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their social or political commentary.
If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. In fact, there is definitely ample ground for this argumentation in the April 2018 topic. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.
In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."
If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise blatantly discriminatory you will lose the round. Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.
This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.
- Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
- Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
- I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
- No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
- While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
- The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
- Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
- PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
- ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
- Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
- Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
- Shoo fly, you bug me:
- Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
- Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
- Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
- Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.
Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. 2020 marks the first year, of a three-year rotation, on the NFHS Wording Committee; do with this information what you want.
I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole
I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just to be running them, do not run your arguments if you don’t think they can win you the round!
I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim.
Saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me.
Update for Online Debate
Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Do not begin the speech at your fastest speed. Makes it very difficult to begin flowing in the online environment. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.
Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.
I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case somebody's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.
Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2.
My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author’s use.
I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.
Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.
I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.
When affs lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims, they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s claims.
When neg’s lost my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg’s rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have.
If you want to read a critique of debate I have no problems with that. Some judges have a problem with it but any activity that can’t listen to internal criticism doesn’t deserve to be called an academic challenge.
I am sick and tired of you LD debaters refusing to engage substance and only read stupid theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy in debate; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me. Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.
Don’t read frivolous theory in front of me, I’m not voting for it. I’m sick of LDers not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.
I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.
"I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios."
I repeat: "I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios."
This part pertains mostly to Parli and other argumentative debate formats.
Even if you practice an oration / persuasion-based format, you should probably read this since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.
Me: Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some LD, IPDA, and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.
What is debate? By definition, competitive debate is a game of rhetoric and argument.
Why does access matter? The outcome of any game becomes suspect when certain players are denied access to the determining factors - the shared resources - within the game. For this reason, access must be a prior question to any format, any tournament, and, in fact, any particular round. A major avoidable barrier to access is speed reading (spreading). Because this is such an issue in debate, I prefer all participants to receive consent before doing this. Let me be clear... I do not believe "clear" or "slow" solves. You can argue about that in the round if you want, but without articulation on the flow, my default stance is that spreading is fair ONLY when all parties have consented to it.
Content: I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios. I also wish people would try to use more irony and satire in debate, so thank you in advance if you're funny.
Preferred Form/Style: I prefer listening to accessible, slightly elevated rates of speech. That's about it.
Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that.
Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it.
I'll gladly vote on an aff K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.
T: I love a well-run topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art. I'll gladly listen to and enjoy an "oldschool" T shell, too. It's also a lost art.
Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the word "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you need when answering.
K: Yes, please. Avoid any blatant mis-readings and misapplications of theory. You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.
DA/CP/Condi: structure, specificity, and clarity.
My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.
Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.
If I or your opponent calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."
Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact analysis at the bottom.
Time, Timers, & Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.
At the end of the day, I believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.
There aren't a lot of specific argumentation-focused norms for this community, so I can't really speak to anything in particular. What I said up there ^ is what I believe about argument, so if you're relying on it heavily in IPDA, you'll want to read up there. A lot of what I said above applies to any format of debate.
Do your best to make your advocacy and burdens clear and I'll vote on who does the best at upholding their burdens.
I think IPDA debaters should all decide how they're going to handle/interpret article 1, section J of the constitution so that both aff and neg have fair and balanced ground. Too often, it seems that judges' thresholds for abuse are out of sync with the seriousness of fairness in debate. The IPDA constitution mentions fair/fairness and abuse a significant number of times compared to governing documents for other formats of debate; so... it seems like an important part of the format to me. I just don't know what to do with it because nobody ever really talks about it in specific, argumentative ways. Although it's not necessary to do this in IPDA, I really wish competitors would just choose to do it.
Regardless, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have the right to ask for my ballot based on that alone - with or without a counter-definition
I competed in mainly LD and congress over four years at North Little Rock High School. Currently, I am a sophomore at Lafayette College and have competed in NFA-LD during my time here. When I did LD I debated traditionally and largely stayed away from policy style argumentation. However, do not let that change how you debate, competing in NFA-LD has allowed me to become familiar with policy debate's structure and argumentation style, but obviously I still have much to learn!
Like I'm sure most judges say I try to be as tab as possible and avoid intervention. I have no problem with speed, but keep in mind that I'm still a student competing so my flow won't be as good as some of the coaches with far more experience. Just make sure you slow down and are clear on tags and analytics. Regardless of the form of debate framing is very important to me and determines how I weigh the round.
Like I said, I was a traditional style LD debater, but that does not mean it will count against you whatsoever if you're a progressive LD'er. Really the only particular thing I have with LD is that I view the value/criterion debate as the most important part. Whoever is winning their framework controls how I will evaluate the case. Of course, you can still win under your opponent's framing and I encourage you to make those "even if" arguments. Just regardless of your style, make sure framework is coming first and you're doing a thorough job.
Even though I am not as familiar with other styles my thoughts on LD still apply. I find framing to be very in important in round and I think that's true across all debate. Keep my experience with policy in mind if you're going to be going for theory arguments or K's. I don't have any problems with them, but you need to slow down on theory and explain it clearly. Same is true on the K, I am not familiar with a lot of K literature so make sure you are explaining the links and the alt clearly. On Topicality, I default to competing interps and have no issue voting on potential abuse, but like I said I will weigh it how I am told to by the debaters.
Lastly, I think debate is a wonderful activity especially when debates treat one another with respect. So please do not be rude in round it will hurt your speaker points. In terms of evidence sharing I prefer speechdrop but my email is email@example.com if needed.
dont be stupid
Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com
TLDR: Do what you want to do and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. I've almost exclusively done K debate so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Debate well and have fun!
Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine.
Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness, For the aff, sometimes its easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense.
These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K rounds tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in debates.
Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.
While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on the other person conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than you extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you.
I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.
It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.
Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.
Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.
Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.
Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.
Oral Comments- I don't give them.
I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.
Flow: I flow.
Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.
I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.
firstname.lastname@example.org, yes to questions and email chain. I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central.
I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am told to weigh them by each team, starting with the framework debate, if applicable. I do not think that debates have to focus on government action being good or bad; instead, I think debates should be focused on whether or not some kind of well-articulated change(s) to the status quo is good or bad. I will listen to and evaluate any argument.
You can win my ballot best if you:
1. Explain the links and impacts of your arguments well.
2. Organize your arguments well, especially in the overviews.
3. Do evidence comparison as necessary.
4. Tell me how to write my ballot, and why I should be writing in that way.
Unethical behavior: Autoloss for any behavior that is racist, transphobic, ableist, or violent. I will treat all debaters and members of our community with courtesy and respect, and I expect you to do the same.
I really enjoy the idea that debate can be for topic education and playing a game in that two teams articulate whether or not the United States Federal Government should take some kind of action compared to some kind of negative alternative or maintaining the status quo. I think the best policy affirmatives are specific in the action that they want to take. The link and impact debates are key for me.
Kritikal Affirmatives and Framework
I think it’s important for k-affs to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them, and explain the role of the negative in the debate. If the kritikal affirmative can win that the state is bad in spite of the negative’s arguments, then I don’t think there is any problem voting for an aff without a plan text or an aff that doesn’t engage with the USFG. If the kritikal affirmative can win that engaging with the topic is bad and their education/fairness outweighs the topical education/fairness, then I don’t think there is any problem with voting for a non-topical affirmative.
I will vote for any kritikal argument that wins its method and theory of power and explains these aspects well, including embedded critiques of debate.
Quality over quantity. Happy to listen and evaluate any neg strat. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with any negative strategy aside from choosing a bunch of blippy arguments or lacking in-depth analysis (or doing anything unethical, see General). When it comes to case debate and offcase links, the more specific, the better. Number of offcase: 6 is the limit.
1. Perms: More than “perm do X;” please explain how the perm works.
2. Ks: I’m fine if you kick the alt and win the link and impact.
3. Ks/K-Affs: Please explain your method and theory of power well.
4. T: I really have a hard time being convinced that an aff is too specific.
5. Speed: Think 8/10 and slowing down a bit on the counterplan text, perms, and analytics in the overview. (I have no theoretical problem with speed… just being realistic on my limit.)
Adi Kombathula (he/him)
Little Rock Central '21 (i've done it all)
I have zero water topic familiarity. Please explain acronyms and don't assume I have any topicality knowledge (no idea what qualifies as topical, aff/neg bias, etc.)
If it matters to you, most of my career centered around reading critical strategies both affirmative and negative, and debating them in a technical manner. My style of debate has influenced the way I judge and evaluate arguments, but not my argumentative preferences. I hated judge intervention as a debater and hate it even more as a judge, so don't make me do it. I am of the belief that tabula rasa is not a thing- I'll evaluate what you put on the table to the absolute best of my ability. Judge instruction, contextualization, and impact calculus delivered in a clear, concise manner will win my ballot.
Section II. Miscellaneous
If you are problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), I reserve the right to do the following: leave, kill your speaks, hand you this L, and/or contact your coaches. Do us both a favor and strike me if this is you.
Finesse/confidence is distinct from blatant disrespect/degradation. I love to see good shots taken here and there, but recognize where the line is. I reserve the right to be the judge for the line of distinction..
Embedded Clash- I love K Tricks and 2NC overviews with offense but these arguments need structure by the 2NR for me to vote on them. Ambiguity gets you nowhere.
Section III. Critical Affirmatives
You should probably pref me as a 1 or a 2.
I really don't care how in the direction of the topic you are but explain your method clearly and concisely. I don't think that aff teams need to win that the ballot is key for their method.
For aff teams:
Against framework: I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good.
I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than a flurry of meaningless k tricks designed to bog down the other team.
For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.
Section IV: Topicality
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates. For the immigration topic: I agree with the general consensus that topical affs must provide legal permanent residence.
Section V: Disadvantages/Counterplans
No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.
I AM NOT JUDGE KICKING YOUR CP UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY TELL ME I SHOULD DO SO. IT IS LITERALLY ONE SENTENCE.
Section VI: Theory
If you read vague alts, I'm not evaluating it. I'm serious. Until someone can tell me what makes vague alts less vague than the actual alternative being read, I refuse to evaluate it.
Condo is the only reason to reject the team other than ethics violations. Other stuff is most likely just reject the argument. Theory is kind of hard to determine definitively what claims are true, so impacting that out with warrants is your best chance although there's obviously a higher threshold than substance. Everyone reads huge blocks for these anyways so whatever.
The point is, take your analysis beyond your blocks.
Section VII: Parting Thoughts
Be nice to your partner/opponents. Enjoy yourself. Don't worry so much about the numbers.
I am an experienced debater and I have performed in multiple speech individual events. I am currently competing in Varsity IPDA debate at Arkansas Tech University.
I don't care if debaters spread, however, I feel like content needs to be stated clearly. I vote based on strength of arguments as opposed to quantity. I will vote based on courtesy so please remember that in order to promote civil discourse you must treat your opponents like the human beings that they are. If you cannot present an appropriate attitude in the round, then you will see that reflected on your ballot.
State Novices Update:
Feel free to read whatever arguments you want and make sure to keep track of your own time. Please set up the email chain with your opponents + my email and be ready to send at the scheduled round time. Other than that, good luck and have fun!
I'm good with just about anything you read, just explain why I should vote for it. I read 70/30 K/Policy arguments in HS, but I've always been the "flex" partner in all of my partnerships, so I'm more receptive to policy arguments than you might think given my debate background.
With that being said, I'm not a fan of generic Process CPs, terrible PTX DAs, and crappy one-card Ks. Reading bad arguments that are only viable if dropped wastes the time of your opponents, yourself, and me, so please limit the number of low-quality off case positions in the 1NC that are just there for time skew. This is NOT an ideological skew towards either Ks or policy arguments, but a presumption towards depth over breadth.
Tech over truth mostly BUT there are a few arguments that I will not judge/find irreconcilable to vote for i.e racism good, sexism good.
I primarily ran identity-based planless affs in high school, so I'm good for these. Explain your method clearly and leverage it against FW or the K. Aff Defense is underrated in FW debates - impact turns are great but are hard to weigh without good judge instruction against clash/fairness.
do line by line! your o/v should not be longer than a minute, and don't be afraid to drop it completely against a big 1NC.
Neg teams - engage the case page and extend presumption/solvency deficits - a 2NR that concedes case solvency or the aff's theory of power is nearly always unwinnable.
I have debated FW on both the aff and the neg many times. These debates usually come down to if the neg is winning sufficient defense to the aff's impact turns and forwarding a persuasive net benefit to their model.
Try to articulate procedural fairness less as "aff team are cheaters, don't listen to any of their arguments" and more as "fairness is a prerequisite to the engagement the aff wants because debate as an activity is unsustainable if one side has a substantial advantage over the other in every round".
Be creative with the TVA - I find the generic "whole rez" TVA that neg teams read to be really unpersuasive. Make sure to answer the aff's specific DAs/impact turns when you extend the TVA - how does it specifically solve the aff's DAs to your model? Why would it not link to any embodiment offense the aff is extending? answering these questions will make the chance of winning terminal impact D with the TVA much higher.
I find that teams from big schools like MBA and GBN reading the small schools DA is incredibly unpersuasive and ridiculous. Especially when they read it against a small school. Please don't.
My 2Ns were all K hacks in high school so I'm pretty good with these.
Understand and apply your theory of power, explain the alt and how it resolves the links, explain what winning ontology does for the other parts of the debate, etc. Judge instruction is key - tell me explicitly what you've won and why that means I have literally no choice but to vote aff/neg.
Arguments I think are dumb
Vague alts bad - I will never vote on this - if the alt is vague, it should be exceedingly easy to beat it on substance alone, not some theoretical blip in the 2ac.
perming/no linking when you obviously link (if you're reading the econ adv. vs the cap K, just impact turn it)
utopian fiat bad
utopian fiat-ing alts
"perm do each" - any explanation of it I've heard either doesn't solve the links b/c it does the aff in isolation or is just perm do both. Explain it to me and I'll happily vote on it, but it's been incoherent in rounds thus far.
Like them. A DA is UQ, link, i/L, and impact. I don't care if your uniqueness and link is in one card, or if your internal link and impact are smorgasborded together, but the disad MUST have these parts for me to vote for it happily. Otherwise, probably 6 seconds of the 2ac calling out this 2 card fifty-word incomplete argument will make me feel very comfortable crossing it from the flow and treating the DA as an new argument in the 2NC if extended.
Turns case analysis is very good - starting from the link/internal link level is better than "nUkE wAr tUrnS sTrucTuraL viOlenCe"
Advantage CPs/CPs cut out of 1AC evidence are always really nice - Agent CPs are OK - Process, ConCon, artificial competition CPs, and other shifty arguments are not my forte as a judge.
have a 1NC solvency advocate for your CP pls
If the neg wins that the plan only solves 50% of case and the CP solves 80% of case without a external/internal net benefit, I will vote neg on the grounds that extra solvency is a reason to prefer the CP over the aff.
don't read the "let's discuss the aff outside of the round" CP against planless affs - i will not vote for it.
For aff teams, creative perms against cheaty CPs will get you very very far.
I like T debates- some affs are fringe-topical or tangential and would definitely warrant a 2NR on topicality, some affs are most definitely topical and do NOT warrant a 2NR on T, but I will always vote for the team that does the better debate on the flow. Competing interps is good, the 2AR should extend a terminal impact on why their counterinterp is better and explain how it implicates the neg's standards. Reasonability is NOT "good is good enough".
I'm generally bad for most theory arguments and strongly believe that most are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. The exception is condo - - - I'm pretty aff leaning here and more than 3 conditional advocacies is treading dangerous waters.
Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion&pathos will generally win my ballot.
For Greenhill RR -- consider my guidance on speed carefully, and don't forget the big picture while you are warring furiously on the line by line.
Speed: Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; Constructives: fast + slow sign posting please; Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you.
College Parli -- Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic always tend to strike me as more persuasive. A unique procedural element of Parliamentary debate is the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time; debaters who utilize this tool to further conversational turns increasing analysis on a key issue usually impress me as well.
Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. Procedural fairness is probably the only fairness arguments I ultimately consider. And you play to win the game. Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer on FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you.
LD -- See Policy above, and also Parli for cross-examination analysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.
Public Forum -- In order to further value open access to debate, I try my best to adapt myself to public forum debates rather than expecting debaters to adapt to me as I do in the other debate events. Part of what will help me is to articulate the reasoning for preferring an interpretation, whether of a rule, a norm, macro-strategies, or anything else, so that I can evaluate with understanding. Follow claim-warrant-impact-weighing and speak with authority.
Please ask specific questions before the round if you have any.
So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.
Worlds @ Coppell:
I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.
To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.
Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:
I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.
Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.
Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:
A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);
B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES
C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.
D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.
Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.
POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.
If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!
Hello debaters! My name is Madison McKinniss and I am currently in college, but during my high school career, I participated in my local high school debate class and I competed at tournaments within the state of Arkansas. I partook in many debate forms and styles over the three years that I competed, including Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Big Questions, Congressional, and Public Forum. However, I am more well-versed within the Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate. If I am your judge for your round, I focus on great arguments, rebuttals, and framework. I, personally, do not care if the arguments you present seem “extreme” or “extravagant,” or “simple,” but just make sure the argument is clearly stated and precise, but as well as you can defend your case and the arguments you presented, throughout the entire round. Also, I want to iterate that I do not focus on which high school you are affiliated with, etc., and I come into the round with a clean slate and no opinions. As a previous debater, I did not like, and still do not like, when I felt like the judge was biased because they already had a certain opinion about the topic that was being discussed or because they did not like a certain school, etc. I want to be a fair judge for BOTH sides and I will give honest criticism and feedback. Again, I want to clarify and reiterate that you can use any argument and any card/piece of evidence you desire, but make sure you have strong pieces of evidence and backup evidence that will assist you when you are trying to support your claim. In Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate, one of the main focuses on these styles is framework, so please discuss your framework and your opponent’s framework. Another tidbit of information is utilizing your prep time!! This will help you so much in the long run. By doing this, it will allow you to map out your arguments and you can take advantage of opportunities to recognize the flaws within your opponent’s case, such as topicality and dropped arguments. I usually will recognize if a debater dropped a piece of evidence, but for flow reasons, tell me and your other judges when your opponent(s) make a mistake! It allows for clarification and helps with the decision-making process. Continuing with the prep time rules, I will only count prep time if you clearly state that you are using it. I will not count your prep time off if you are sharing or flashing your evidence. Also, I honestly do not care if you keep your own prep time, but I, just to make sure, will count it for you as well.
With your speech documents, please share it with me if it is policy, however, if it is LD or PF, I can cover most of your evidence and your arguments through the use of flowing. I would not recommend flashing your case to your opponent or opponents, if you are competing in the style of Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum, because of the fact that it is supposed to be a slower pace debating style, but if you want to flash your case, I do not mind. Up next is speaker points! I have a general distaste when judges mark debaters below the twenty-five point mark, so my minimum when it comes to speaker points is twenty-five and my maximum amount that I will give a debater is thirty speaker points. Just beware though, I do not give out perfect speaker points (30) often. The exception for the minimum amount of speaker points if you are inherently rude in round and you do not show professionalism to your opponent(s) as well as me (and if there are more judges, them). I also want to state that I do not mind if you spread, however for styles like LD and PF, I would speak in a manner that is articulate, clear, and eloquent, because again, those two styles are slower when it comes to pacing. It also, to me, allows the debater to be more persuasive when you are speaking at pace that is understandable to the general populace.
When making my decision, I focus on these elements:
Evidence (including your links and impacts) and was the case’s evidence unique.
Rebuttal arguments and did you successfully backup those claims by providing more evidence, more analytics, etc.
Voters (why should I vote for your side)
Topicality (were you on topic, or were you going on incoherent ramblings that do not match with the topic that you are supposed to be debating)
Again, just make sure you are being clear on the arguments you made throughout the round and elements of topicality, theory, burdens, and performance, you can use it all or any because I am looking at if the argument you are making stands against the other. I hope you have fun in your rounds, stay professional, and stay safe!
I'm a parli debater for Arkansas State University with about 7 years of speech/debate experience. in high school I did progressive LD debate and, in my senior year, I was the top LD debater in AR.
In a debate round, I feel that you should be able to run whatever you want. I'm fine with ks, case, theory, whatever. I'm also fine with spreading as long as you can do so with clarity. I am also a huge fan of weird/obscure/surprising args so do w that as you will.
I expect debaters to be kind to one another during round, however, I am a fan of friendly banter/roasts so if that's your cup of tea then go for it lol. Express general courtesy: ask if spreadings cool, ask to disclose, all that jazz before the round starts. I also expect an email chain to be shared between everyone, this makes it way easier for me to evaluate certain arguments and makes it way fairer for both debaters. mistakes happen, we all make them. email chains check for this.
on speaker points: idc about them so just have a fun round and you'll get 29s and (maybe) 30s
some things I don't like in a debate round are things like running theory just for the sake of theory (if there's no clear harm that you're facing and you still decide to run theory, don't expect to win on it or for me to even care about that arg.) or the obvious things like no racism, sexism, ableism, etc.
TL;DR: run whatever (i love weird arguments), spreading's cool, email chains pls, don't be an ass
(my email is email@example.com)
Parent Judge. Some minor experience judging at local tournaments with Speech and LD and PF. Make sure to be clear on your impacts and having a clearly written out "ballot" for me in the final focus. I'm excited to hear all the interesting arguments on this topic! And, please no spreading. If you spread, I may not get all your points in your arguments
The primary thing I look for in good debate is argument: good logical structure, avoidance of fallacies, strong analogies, etc. The points you utilize in your round should be geared toward breaking down your opponents argument as a whole, not necessarily specific examples. Nitpicking your opponent over inconsequential points or putting words in their mouth is certainly not preferable. I much prefer to see good logic skills, counterexamples, and undermining of arguments.
I have experience in every form of debate except CX, however, I am familiar with a fair amount of policy/CX jargon. I am currently competing for the University of Central Arkansas Debate Team (we offer scholarships!). In high school, I was top 30 in the nation in Domestic Extemp and competed all around the country in LD, PF, and Congressional debate as well. I like to think I know what I am talking about, so my goal is to provide feedback on the ballots that is actually helpful.
For all events, I will not flow spreading, and if you use policy jargon in PF, LD, or anything besides policy, I will not flow that.
- Using abusive definitions will likely result in a loss. Try to avoid topicality arguments or definition debate unless the definitions are blatantly abusive.
-Focus on the impacts of your arguments, and make sure to signpost your cards using the standard form of Last Name and Date. I will ask to see evidence if it is obvious that there is an evidence violation.
-The entire debate needs to be based around your value, as that is how I judge LD. Your arguments need to convince me why we should use your value over the opponents, as dropping the value basically makes your case null.
-If you are going to run progressive arguments such as a K or a T-charge, then you need to fully develop it and give me some justification of why I should even consider it when filling out my ballot.
-Follow the rule book, and make your arguments understandable for the common man. I am not a scientist, therefore you should avoid scientific jargon that is undefined or confuses me.
-This debate style is like no other, so it should not resemble any other form of debate. It should be at a slower pace than other forms of debate and should focus more on rhetoric and big picture argumentation rather than line by line evidence-based refutation. Use points of information strategically. You should not just use them to interrupt the opposing speaker.
General Debate Paradigm:
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run topicality in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and conncetion with your judge. Spreading harms or elimiates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading only but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.
I beleive in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, reguardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.
Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasuive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
A word about style within the round:
Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
Running Logical Fallacies are strongly discouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove, they lose.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.
T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.
Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.
DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly
CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit
K- I am familiar with most of the k literature
CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at
In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).
First let me explain how to get a Hot L:
So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING
Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean
Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples
I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc
I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating
Update for LD: everything else in my paradigm is geared towards policy - read the general preferences section, add me to the email chain, have fun.
little rock central ’22, have been every speaker position – as a 2N, enjoyed impact turns, topicality and Ks of liberalism – as a 2A, enjoyed tiny plan affs with 2 big advantages, K affs with large criticisms of debate OR redefined words in the topic (I read a plan in Korean before).
email chain, not speechdrop: joerhee779 at gmail dot com. Email chain should be: Tournament - Round # - Aff team code (Aff) vs Neg team code (Neg). Example: Michigan - Round 6 - SF Roosevelt LT (Aff) vs LRCH GR (Neg)
you must give a content warning if your speech includes mentions of suicide, self-harm, or sexual violence. this is non-negotiable.
flex prep and cx are fine and good, speech and prep times are non-negotiable, only 2 speakers per team, don’t care about ins and outs.
the old version of my paradigm was rambly and unnecessary, so I have tried to make it as succinct as possible, the top part (this) is the essentials.
I would strongly prefer you keep your camera on but won’t force you to.
if you're unsure who I judge like, here's who I would love on a 9 person panel:
General preferences (TLDR):
1. Problematic arguments are an instant L 26. This doesn’t mean death good is off the table, just not any ism being good (includes Malthus). The closer you toe the line, the more intervention I am allowed to do. Obviously don’t harm yourself or anyone else.
2. Don’t adapt to me. My only stylistic preference is that you do line-by-line and explain the impact to each argument, or what the implication of an argument is for the larger debate.
3. I have spent my career researching both ‘camps’ of arguments – plan affs, political engagement, kritikal negation, kritikal affirmatives, impact turns, etc. I’ve genuinely heard it all and am glad to adjudicate a PIK versus K aff debate as well as an impact turn versus plan aff debate.
4. Tech over truth, as long as the argument is not blatantly untrue (2016 elections DA in 2021, Trump circumvents while not in office, saying they didn’t read a card when they did). This doesn’t mean I have to agree with the argument, just that it’s not objectively untrue.
5. Arguments consist of claims, warrants, and implications. Dropping an argument with solely claims and warrants does NOT mean you can’t debate the implication.
6. I will take the path of least resistance. Make my decision as easy as possible, go for the easiest strategy, and you will be rewarded.
7. Disclosure is good.
8. Don’t just read blocks. You definitely need them, but don’t only read them. Trust me, I can tell.
10. CX is binding, and a speech where you can greatly boost your speaks by not being too aggressive while still holding your ground.
Specific arguments (longer):
Negative Kritiks: I felt the need to move this to the top because I know many teams will look for this first. They are strategic, and I’ve thought of them a lot.
Use your theory to problematize the AFF’s assumptions or advantages. This doesn’t mean you intrinsically need case defense, but it definitely helps if for example, you are making claims about securitization and then have cards on the advantage that say their impacts are fake. Another example: you read a link about "spectacularizing extinction" and have cards that say extinction's inevitable. Be creative!
Overviews should never exceed 2 minutes. I will flow straight down regardless of what you tell me.
Link specificity wins debates, and quotes are preferred. Links must have impacts, which to me just means - if you have a link it needs to mean something - if the aff's hypothetical imagination uses a form of futurism that's anti-Black, what does that cause?
Kritik framework debates are usually won by impact cal. Winning what debate is/should be for knowledge helps but say why I should care more about your framework DA/impact. Creative neg interps that include some aff offense are helpful, but I'm down to exclude the aff if you win it's good. I will not vote for a permutation of aff and neg interps that was not introduced in the debate. Framework must go one way.
Alts must solve the links. I'm increasingly confused what my ballot does to enact the alt. Alt arguments seem much stronger if they are about epistemology rather than if they affirm some material action, but I need an explanation of what voting neg does for that. If you kick the alt, I need to know what I should evaluate that generates uniqueness for the links or if the non-unique link just outweighs the AFF (harder, but doable given good impact calculus).
I’m familiar with most kritiks. Explanation is always preferred, especially postmodernist things. At a base level, I must understand what you’re kritiking, how the affirmative demonstrates this, what this causes, and why this outweighs or turns the affirmative.
During my career, I commonly read anti-blackness arguments, primarily from Moten and Harney, Wilderson, Sexton, Warren, Mbembe, Wynter, Weheliye and Sharpe. I also read many kritiks based around Asian identity, Ks of security institutions, capitalism, liberalism, the nation state, etc. This does not mean that I can’t evaluate other kritiks, and in fact love innovation. This just means you must explain the things listed above, for every kritik, regardless of whether I’ve read it. Conversely, I won't fill in the gaps for your explanation just because I know what your author says.
Aff (Plan) vs Neg (Kritik):
Having a nuanced defense of your aff’s pedagogy is very cool and will be rewarded. However, the case outweighs + framework strategy is just as viable.
Impact turns are underutilized, but obviously don’t say racism good. State good, heg good, cap good, are all very winnable.
Usually alt solvency deficits should be extended. Neg teams suck at extending alts.
My main gripe with 2As versus kritiks is they are either too defensive, or shotgun arguments even till the 2AR. Choose a couple main pieces of offense by the 2AR.
Perms must say more than perm do both. I would much prefer texts of perms to be longer and be fewer than 7 perms back-to-back. I will reward nuanced perms and punish lazy ones (similar to my philosophy on all 2As).
Neg Framework vs Kritikal Affs:
Read it and have answered it a lot. I much prefer you to read this like a topicality argument with a defense of predictable limits and procedural impacts like clash and fairness, but the framework style movements/lawyering/topic education impacts are fine too.
That being said, everyone needs to do impact cal. Winning procedural impacts alone is not sufficient, and you must win why they outweigh or turn the aff’s impacts. Aff teams must also win their impacts outweigh or turn the neg's impacts.
‘Intrinsic good’ is not an argument, it is two words. Say why having an equal ballot is an intrinsic good because preserving engagement is the best model of debate.
Winning framing questions like what debate is/what the ballot does are essential for impact comparison. Additionally, you should tell me what of the Aff's offense you solve and why the risk of your impact outweighs the small part you might not solve.
Debate is probably a game. It is definitely more than that. Contesting either is wrong and unstrategic. Saying one aspect matters more is the most strategic way to approach this.
Kritik Affs vs Neg Framework:
I’m fine with the direction of the topic aff and impact turn affs. Read both, enjoyed many.
That being said, you must have a reason why debating the resolution is bad, NOT why the topic is bad (I won't auto-vote you down for this, but it just makes it way easier for the neg to win - they can just win the resolution is good).
I'm down for these AFFs, but also will pull the trigger on presumption pretty quick absent a tie to knowledge production/materiality/framing argument for how to evaluate the 1AC's methodology.
Role of the ballots are usually framing issues of what to do as a judge more than just the ballot doesn’t signal a win-loss. The ballot does signal a win-loss, just tell me what else it does and why.
Utilizing case against framework is both strategic and good. Do that.
Other Neg Arguments against Kritikal Affs:
The Neg is not racist/homophobic/sexist because they negated the Aff. Both teams should utilize case way more.
Read policy AFFs as CPs---its not like they can run theory against you or perm it. In that same vein, read weird DAs, cheaty stuff, word PICs, obscure Ks, to put them out of their comfort zone.
Seriously, don't drop case please, put impact turns on case or other nifty tricks, not just 9 scenario planning or state good cards, i.e. read heg good, libism good, realism good, etc.
For 2Ns, please don't just read FW and Cap, be a bit more creative (I actually prefer you spam and then figure out what to go for in the block). I would much rather you read impact turns and a SPEC argument than just FW and Cap. However, the Cap K is severely underrated as a 2NR option.
Topicality vs Aff (Plan):
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue (this is one of my immutable positions).
Teams need to slow down reading their T blocks so quickly. T is probably a question of competing interps, but teams should make reasonability more offensive, i.e. substance crowd-out could be pretty legit if your interps are very close. Reasonability without a counter interp is non-sensical. Tell me why debates under your model are good.
If the AFF no links everything, T becomes really convincing. In-round abuse is preferable, but usually it ends up being model debates anyways (so win competing interps) Tell me the violation, and compare what your interp solves vs what theirs doesn't. Don't just sound like you're complaining that the 1AC didn't read the resolution exactly, explain why it matters.
Small affs are cowardice.
Procedurals that aren't T: similar to T, just impact it out on both sides, procedural debates are hella stale most times, so if you can explain it well, I'll be impressed. Most of these are arbitrary anyways, so explain well. Do I vote for ASPEC? If it is warranted, lower threshold if you actually have evidence. AFF: just answer ASPEC.
Disads: Good for good ones, bad for bad ones, like all other arguments.
Tricks and smart link turns case arguments are super nice. I can be convinced link frames uniqueness or uniqueness frames the link, my opinion has shifted a lot on this. That being said, actually read uniqueness. Generic links are ok but at least contextualize them in the block.
Internal links should be defended heavily, these are probably the worst part of DAs, yet explained the least. Sometimes you should just be reading these DAs as turns, but I'll let you use your judgement.
I really want the AFF to straight turn a DA. Please do it if you can.
CPs: cool. Always do these things: 1. explain why its competitive and why there is a clear net benefit. 2. explain why perms link to the net benefit. 3. weigh the net benefit against the solvency deficit (sufficiency framing or something like that)
I don't really get too much advanced CP theory. I have taught my novices to go for intrinsic perms and read intrinsic perms good, but that's about it. Functional and textual competition are probably good but doesn't necessarily have to be both for you to win it. Linguistic and/or kritikal CPs are cool (see: Stick-up, Nommo)
Aff (Plan) vs CPs: solvency deficits need an impact and if perm do the CP results in the Aff---why the CP is illegit. Read more than just "pdb-it solves". I lean Aff a little bit on 'cheating CPs', but as long as you convince me the mechanism is distinct from the Aff you're good.
Theory: Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team other than ethics violations. Condo's likely good, but limited condo is way easier to convince me on. Other stuff is most likely just reject the argument. However, superior Aff debating can change any of these dispositions.
Theory is kind of hard to determine definitively what claims are true, so impacting that out with warrants is your best chance although there's obviously a higher threshold than substance. Everyone reads huge blocks for these anyways so whatever.
Judge kick is probably fine, because I think in a world where the 2NR is going for a CP, DA and case arguments, the 2AR isn't really giving 2 different 2ARs since they have to answer everything anyways. If the Aff doesn't extend condo, judge kick is legit, but I will probably forget unless you say it.
T comes before theory. Perf con is a better solvency takeout for alts (especially epistemology) than to reject the team, same with vague alts.
Impact turns: Love them for the sole purpose that they clash the most with a lot of the AFF's assumptions. Spark is cool, but idk why AFF teams aren't reading more offense than just 'nuke war causes extinction'. Read space col good. Cap good, heg good, and other impact turns against K Affs are really fun to watch.
I'm down for most impact turns (even death good, wipeout, and animal suffering outweighs human suffering), just try and structure the speech well, these get hella messy. Always send a card doc if you are going for an impact turn.
Case: Don't drop case on both sides. A 1NR that is all case is always fun if you are good at explaining things. I like DAs on case as turns.
Teams should read more smart analytics than bad cards.
Newish args/cards are ok in the 1AR if the block adds new cards/answers to your 2AC arguments with new warrants.
I did one LD tournament in 9th grade, and had a bad experience with a racist judge because it was in Arkansas. Nothing against LD, just to say I have little experience BUT I will do my best to make your round as safe and welcome as possible.
I know very little about Hegelian and Kantian philosophy, and don't plan on being yelled at for 3 speeches about the deontological nature of good will. That being said, I am open to being taught any argument, just know I have zero prior knowledge.
Everything else should be fine - having value criterion is important, theory is meh but I'll vote on it (although if the other team has a kritikal argument about why theory matters zero I might be persuaded the more memey your condo shell is), traditional is fine, "progressive" kritikal debate is more than fine.
Above all else, assume I know literally nothing about your author, argument, ethics, and debate from ground zero, do impact cal and you should be fine. The more like policy, the more likely I am to understand.
Speaker points (policy and LD)
I think my points aren't too inflated, but my coaches might disagree.
anything below 27 - you most certainly violated the two rules at the top of my paradigm
27.1-27.6 - you lacked organization and refutation of your opponent's arguments, but you're getting there!
27.7-28.2 - you did refute arguments, but lacked strategy and dropped some things here and there - you're definitely improving!
28.3-28.6 - you answered key arguments, were civil while holding your ground, and made some mistakes. you're probably right in the middle of the pool, and I think you might break
28.7-29 - didn't drop arguments, had good strategic vision, and made minor mistakes. I think you will break
29.1-29.4 - very good execution, clear speaking, and consistent strategy throughout the debate. I'm sure you will break, and you probably will win an elim round or two
29.5-29.8 - near perfect speeches, great strategy choices, great clarity, and not a jerk. I think you will be in late elims, and you deserve a speaker award
29.9-30 - rarely expect to give this out, one of the best speakers ever, I think you will be a top 3 speaker at the tournament, possibly win the tournament, and expect to hear good things about you outside this round
Questions? Email me.
She/Her/They/Them - Radically Thotty
I am a CX college debater at Wake Forest University (RS for life). I also debated for 4 years at Bentonville West High School (DR forever). If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org (Also add me to the email chain)
Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face
Go off on whatever you want
Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)
Love speed especially when clear
If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism (sorry bout it)
Also, cross-ex is like... the most important part to me...
I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).
Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bitchy, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.
IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams
KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.
Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says fvck the res that's totally fine too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.
Framework: I read both K affs and Policy affs, so I've definitely voted on FW before. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.
TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho too ;)
DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.
CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity on CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.
Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine I guess but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.
KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for the ways in which plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.
Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.
Things I hate
- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)
- Stealing Prep
- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism, etc.
Debates supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.
If you got this far lol:
+.25 speaking points for each GOOD RuPaul's Drag Race reference ;) (This doesn't mean dancing btw - Asya told me I had to clarify that)
please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
1. be nice and respectful :)
2. read anything you want (as long as it doesn't violate number 1)
i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is mostly based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross, ie bringing up what happened during cross in your speeches. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, just don't sacrifice clarity. any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.
I'm on the debate team at Arkansas State University. I have 6 years of experience in a variety of formats, including LD, PF, StuCo, and Parli. I'm a traditional flow judge. You can run whatever you want, as long as it is well articulated.
I'm fine with spreading but your opponent needs to be fine with it as well. I value accessibility to the round.
Slow down when you read plan text, perm text, counterplans, etc. and please post them in the chat.
Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach
I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line by line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line by line argumentation.
Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line by line analysis. Organization is key to keep the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because your not clear, it could cost you the round.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.
I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all time.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
I participated in Speech and Debate all 4 years of High School. I competed in local tournaments in Arkansas and Missouri as well as competing at tournaments around the country. I am a two time National Qualifier once in LD the second time in WSD. I have competed in nearly every NSDA event. As a result, I appreciate things that differentiate them. I am not against any form of argumentation as long as you do the link work to make it make sense. I debate collegiately for Morehouse College and do Parli and BP Debate, so I have no issue with spreading.
NOTE: While I can flow high speeds, if you are unintelligible I will set my pen down and refuse to flow your speech. I do not accept having a case be sent to me, Debate is at its basis about oration and the ability to convince, it is not a writing contest.
I am not a fan of personal attacks or statements that generalize entire communities, while Debate is a forum for all ideas and those discussions can become heated, being civil is what differentiates debaters from politicians.
In terms of argumentation, I don't have a problem with niche discussions, but being squirrely and running from debates will not earn you any brownie points. Make sure your arguments always link back to the resolution at hand.
Last thing, have fun and be respectful it takes a lot of work to speak publically and we don't want to have anyone feeling as if they don't belong in this activity.
If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins.
I debated for four years at Little Rock Central High School. I've been judging in Arkansas now for three years and also have some experience judging national novice tournaments.
I had a judgephilosophies page, but it looks like that page is gone so I'll write up the important things. If something you're concerned about isn't on here, just assume I don't have a particularly unique view on it.
Basically, I look for the team that impacts out their internal links the best. This doesn't always mean your typical ends-with-nuke-war scenarios, but it can also be impacts of standards and fairness on Topicality and Framework debates. The team who does the best job doing this almost always wins my ballot.
As a note, I have a decently high threshold on Framework and Topicality debates since I think there's a lot of potential in them that debaters don't utilize. That being said, I hate nominal (we attempted to answer their stuff, this should be a wash or go in our favor) debates of this kind and also just ones where the team isn't actually ready to read the arguments.
I also have a relatively lower threshold on non-mainstream kritiks (security and cap come to my mind as what I consider "mainstream" off the top of my head -- hopefully you get the idea). What really helps your cause here is a specific link (this applies to any neg argument though) and good articulation on things like the world of the alt on the K and internal net benefits on the CP. Without these things, in closer debates, I usually give the aff the benefit of the doubt since they read a 1AC and (hopefully) are doing impact overviews, and I prefer to weigh that analysis against an alt that's not articulated well or CP internal links not articulated well.
Feel free to ask me questions in person any time or shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org!
I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important. With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:
*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.
*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case.
**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of your are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.
*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - I am a flow judge - if I can't flow you can't win.
*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.
*If you provide a weighing mechanism or framework PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.
*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible.
*In Public Forum:
**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution.
**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!
**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during one of the speeches.
*In Congressional Debate - please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.
Affiliation and Big Picture:
I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.
I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.
Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.
Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.
I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.
Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.
K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.
DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.
Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.
Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.
Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is email@example.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.
I am more communication based. I prefer debaters who will prioritize what is important to them. I’m also an educator therefore I focus on the academic aspect of debate.
Hello! I am Turner Ward and I did forensics and debate events in high school for five years, I kinda know what I am doing.
TLDR: do what you want to do and do it well. Let me know if you have any questions before the round and I will be happy to answer them.
Overview: I don't have a major preference for the style of debate that you do. While I have mainly done critical debate in high school and this is what I am doing in college, I have also read soft-left affs and disads. I would much rather you debate what you are comfortable with rather than trying to conform to a style of debate that you aren't good at. I have done some research on this topic to help develop cases for the novices at my high school so I have a general idea about the topic. However, if you are going to be using a bunch of legal/technical terms you may need to flesh out what they mean. With that being said, you have the responsibility to explain your arguments to me and why they are important. Just because I have read k's in high school doesn't mean that I will hack for the k. I think far too many teams fail to have links specific to the aff and have terrible explanations of the alt which make it an uphill battle for the negative. Good alt explanation, framing arguments, and link explanation go a long way in making me vote negative on a k. This also applies for a counterplan/disad debate.
If you are going to be going for cp's and da's make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a strong link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.
I will vote on T or FW arguments. I think teams underutilize t way too much and especially when the 1ar is not very responsive on t, more teams should feel comfortable going for it.
K affs: go for it. you need to make sure that you have a method and you defend the method or have a reason why having a method is bad. I think it is probably important that the aff talk about the resolution and advocate a strategy that would be in the direction of the resolution. I am cool with performance debate but the performance should relate to the resolution and/or the debate space in some way. I think there are ways that negative teams can engage k/performance affs besides reading framework but this is much easier when the debate is centered on the resolution. I think when this fails to happen, framework becomes more convincing.
I think disclosure is important, especially in novice debates. You should disclose the aff that you are reading and previous 2nrs. The easiest way to do this is on the wiki. If you cannot do this, you should find a way to let your opponents know before the round. Teams that refuse to disclose affs will probably lose to disclosure theory if it is read unless the aff provides a very convincing argument explaining why you shouldn't have to/can't. I will attempt to reward good disclosure with a slight bump in speaks but honestly this should just be a norm. This is more so for policy debate but I believe that this is a community norm that is extremely beneficial and is thankfully being spilled over to other styles of debate like LD. If you have the ability to disclose, you should.
While I have done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the more traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but some of the theory arguments that I have seen in LD I have not been a fan of. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than you extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Do with that as you wish. I definitely lean progressive > traditional in terms of style of debate but if you happen to have me and you are a traditional debater don't try to overly conform to a style of debate you aren't comfortable with. I'd much rather see you do what you do best. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear but make sure to be considerate to your opponents.
Thank you Lawson Hudson for the Paradigm.
Hello lil baby debaters !!!!
heres the gist of it... I did policy debate at Bentonville High School for 3yrs..
I will easily be able to follow your arguments and your speed... but if your spreading is UNCLEAR then it won't make it onto my flow.
-- ORGANIZATION IS KEY!!!! If you don't sign post I won't know where arguments go. I'm a flow judge and if I don't know where your argument goes then it will probably hinder how I evaluate the round at the end
-- if you want outstanding speaker points you have to work for it... just because you can spread isn't enough for me, you have to be able to show me that you can speak PERSUASIVELY!! Slow down, emphasize words, repetition, hand gestures, analogies, eye contact. I should be completely moved to tears/ action by your speech.
-- NEVER END A SPEECH BEFORE THE TIMER GOES OFF. you should always have something to say
-- don't ask if you can sit during your speech the answer is no-- **THIS WAS PRECOVID U CAN SIT**
-- I will flow any argument but you better KNOW it and be able to explain it well. If you are going to read something that you just found a few hrs before... be careful
-- if it comes down to a specific card I will comb through it so this is a WARNING to make sure your card says EXACTLY what you are arguing .... I would rather you have incredibly strong analytics than mediocre evidence
-- if you have strong evidence/ can argue something crazy really well, then go for it. my outside biases/ opinions do not affect my view. You have good evidence that says Atlantis the lost city has been found then it's a valid argument that must be adequately addressed by your opponent. Argue that your team is actually pirates idc
-- rebuttals need impact calc.
-- I like rebuttals to consist of analysis of the round, less cards & more explaining WHY your team is winning
-- TOPICALITY IS A PRIORI (I don't care what the new fad is, but to me that is one of the most important things in the round) --> that also means, don't run dumb ones and make sure your technique is correct
-- NEG try not to bring up new arguments in the 2nc... it annoys me when rebuttals turn into the aff whining/ a debate over the rules of policy. If you DO bring up a new argument it better be the strongest thing you have, don't just waste time.
-- NEG I want to see a good use of the negblock... don't say the exact same thing for 13 mins
-- I WANT CLASH. Case debate is so often swept under the rug !!!! even if you don't have specific cards against their case I will flow analytics. Strong analytics !!!!!!! This holds true for all forms of debate.
-- don't be rude to your opponents during cross ex
-- don't run sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. arguments. If I think that the round has become offensive I will stop you and force you to take YOUR prep time to re evaluate. Don't be insensitive.
-- if you flash files I will not count it as prep
-- have a phone or timer for your speech... I will not be your judge AND timekeeper.
-- open cross ex is fine in my book BUT if your partner is answering all the questions for you I will take that to mean that you don't understand what you just read
-- do NOT start off cross ex with 'how are you' or lame filler questions. Just end cross ex or ask for more details... but don't waste my time. CROSS EX SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL.
-- K affs are fun, go for it !!!
-- do not forget to extend your case in every speech.
--AFF if you are going to have framework in your plan I better hear it until the very end. Don't say read it in the 1ac and then not mention it again until rebuttals.. I will consider it dropped
FOR PF and LD...
-- I've judged enough rounds that I understand and can follow the arguments you make
-- I'm okay with K's being run in an LD round but no CPs; progressive or traditional whatever your preference is go for it
-- I know that PF and LD are supposed to focus more heavily on slow, well spoken, persuasive speeches, that being said, I am okay with speed but DO NOT SPREAD.
-- look you don't get a lot of time in these speeches, I get that, but I also need to see that you are adequately responding to every argument on the flow !!! (This is part of being organized)
-- impact calc is still relevant, I wanna hear some hella persuasive speaking in those summary speeches
-- also you CAN debate the weighing criteron... I expect you to extend. Don't just define your criteron, you better put it into the context of the resolution.
-- no 'open cx' in pf, don't ask. You have grand crossfire/ you should know your case well enough to answer questions on your own.
-- have fun... good luck... I better hear some enticing, impressive, creative, and logical arguments !!!! Claaaaaassssshhhhhh! Do your research.
- don't just repeat your case over and over...
- i don’t remember reading or even thinking about paradigms the few times I participated in Congress back in the old day BUT in case you are reading this… most of what i said for PF/LD apply to you. I would say be more cautious with speed because other judges aren’t gonna like that even though i don’t mind as long as you can talk fast and still be persuasive and include tone fluctuation
- when disagreeing (or agreeing) with an argument if u mention someone refer to them as a fellow delegate.
-- if you decide to flash or have some sort of email chain during round I want to be included. firstname.lastname@example.org
-- I try not to disclose in round because I want you guys motivated and encouraged for your next round so PLEASE don't ask me who won
-- I expect you to come to the round having already read my paradigm... you may ask me questions about what I have said or anything I didn't specify but I will not repeat all of what I have typed
-- be unique and creative !!! Have fun with this !!!!! Can't wait to see how hard you have all worked !!
1. As a judge, It is a priority of mine to not let bias and predisposed opinions of topics to influence how I judge a competitor. I do not want to award winners just because I agreed with their side beforehand. Fairness comes from a clean slate beforehand and a newfound opinion after the round. I value the the time and effort you put in to debate such challenging topics so I try my best to be someone that really trusts and listens to what you say.
2. I value respect over anything. Respect the judge of course, but also respect your opponent. Losing a round is not worth an attitude of disrespect. I have seen too many rounds recently where people talked over the other and it got ugly. I do not like that. Also remember, this is something that should be considered fun. Enjoy yourselves.
3. it is often thought of to take debate as way more serious than it should be. Humor, puns, and side jokes are ideal. I get bored if it’s all talk and no games. Give a joke or two. Even if other jokes do not like this, it makes it more lively for me.
4. paint me a picture. As a future lawyer, I need to see a picture and a concrete image of your plan and ideas rather than having to try to imagine something in my mind. That makes me get lost in the “what if’s” and “could be‘s.
5. Imagine yourself as a policy maker or politician rather than debate competitor. Convince me that you know how to get the job done and that you know what you are talking about. It is more convincing than talking like a student trying to win a debate competition.
6. Refer to me as “judge”. I am nice, you can make conversation with me. I love meeting competitors and hearing about what they do because it is something that I used to do.
7. pace of speaking is a huge part of how I judge. If you talk too fast, I get lost. A little goes a long way when you keep your pace under control.
8. Snark is okay, don’t be a jerk, please.
9. Know and understand your evidence. Become an expert of it.
10. Prove to me that there ARE flaws and that you CAN fix them.
Little bit about me, I prefer to be called Henry, the whole judge thing is a little too formal for my liking. I did PF at BHS for three years in high school.
If I'm your judge it's pretty simple:
1. I like to see good, consistent, clash in the round
2. I am perfectly fine if you have some sass// pick at your opponent in your responses// questions during cross fire. That said you obviously know where the line is and to not cross is, and if you do I will immediately vote you down.
3. I hate definition debate, the only time that you should HAVE to use definitions is a word that is ambiguous or could have multiple meanings. So please don't define words like should, ought, etc. we know what they mean, spend those extra seconds somewhere else in your speech.
If you have any other questions I'll be happy to answer them before the round, however if you didn't take the time to read this I will not repeat my paradigms before rounds, it's your job to come prepared.