NIETOC TFA Space City Swing
2022 — Houston, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
NEW: please email or flash cases if spreading. firstname.lastname@example.org. For probably my most controversial paradigm, see R.O.B. For the current topic, I've been really vibing with Phil args.
-General: I will vote for anything if the argument is complete and extended. I don't disregard arguments because they aren't reflective of common debate or a universe model. This means it is important to pay attention to what your opponent is saying even if it seems ridiculous or silly. Dropped arguments can be very powerful if your opponent positions them properly.
-Complex weighing: I will vote off of interactive layers. Example: Leveraging K as a meta-theory argument on why theory is bad. Make sure you road map this type of leveraging because I don't want to have to make the connection myself.
-1AC/1NC weighing: If weighing arguments are made in the 1AC, and they are dropped, and they are extended properly, I consider the arguments conceded. When early weighing is present, I don't give analytical weighing responses any special privilege and consider them new arguments in later speeches.
-Ks: I've heard a lot of K's but if you are running something super strange give me some grace and do some explaining. Make sure to connect the critique to a role of the ballet.
-ROBs: If you are asking me to vote based on some ethical obligation to the pre-fiat activities of the round (e.g., vote for the discourse which best deconstructs neo-col), my view is you are inviting the possibility of judge-intervention. For example, if your opponent drops the argument that 'you cannot do the aff with the mindset of the K', but in-round their actions imply them doing the aff with the mindset of the K, I might vote for them. This is because you told me to vote not on the flow, not on truth-testing, but on a personal ethical obligation to the discourse which best deconstructs X issue. Here, judge intervention emerges because the best discourse is not necessarily the discourse of debate norms regarding flow-evaluation. As a result, since the ROB and traditional flow evaluation are not necessarily in-synch, if I am to take the ROB seriously I might vote on what I see rather than what you explicitly say in X, Y, and Z speech.
-Theory: Make sure you are connecting theory to drop the debater. I will also, even in Policy, vote off of RVIs if the argument is made.
-Phil: I'm good with it. If you win the life of 1 is worth more than 10000000, and prove you save the 1, I'll vote for you. Don't be afraid to run Kant.
-Policy: cool. I think policy is super powerful against theory, phil, and Ks. Please don't get from this paradigm I only like abstract arguments. Honestly, over the past year, I've found myself voting more and more for policy args.
-Performance: I always feel like I am in a bad position when I judge performance affs/negs (unless there are tricks hidden within the performance). My struggle emerges from a desire to judge based on the flow. If you are running performance, and the performance does not have tech embedded within it, please give me strong reasons why I should not judge based on the flow.
-Tricks: If your tricks are really hidden, either (a) flash or (b) please have time-stamped versions of your speech docs.
Defaults: These are things I assume unless told otherwise
-Resolution: I default to (a) truth-testing, (b) text not spirit, (c) ought implies morality, (d) ought is weaker than obligation but stronger than permissibility, (e) prescriptive, not descriptive, morality.
-Agents: I default to (a) aggregation of persons is possible, (b) agents are distinct persons (we are not all One entity), (c) substantive free-will is possible where substantive means sufficient to allow for moral valence.
-Ontology: I default to Things (concepts, entities, identities) are constructed rather than non-contingently derived with the exception of Persons and Ethics (how are these two exceptions possible, who knows? My research is on the topic).
-Ethics Violations: I default to (a) ethic violations are violations of the explicit rules of a tournament, and (b) ethics violations require judge intervention if and only if they cannot be remedied by in-round solutions (e.g., theory and other arguments); otherwise, I will let Tabroom untangle the mess.
-Aff/Neg Role/Theory of Knowledge: I default that we assume claims to be false until proven otherwise. As a result, Aff has the burden of making some sort of positive claim.
-28-30 unless something really bad happens
-The more progressive the round, the more I base speaker points on good argumentation/strategy. (it seems a bit silly to base speaker points on who spreads the fastest).
-The more traditional the round, the more I base speaker points on oration skills and clarity of reasoning.
CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical
LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.
I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.
1. Make sure your address the topic.
2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.
3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.
4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.
1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.
1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.
1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.
2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.
1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.
1. Be an active member of the session.
2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.
3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.
4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.
Hello, my name is Darren Frazee. I debated (policy debate) at McNeil HS (TX) and at the University of Kansas in college. I currently help coach debate at Klein HS.
Please include me on the email chain - email@example.com - just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.
I have no problem with K's, theory, or speed. I ran all types of arguments myself as a debater. I evaluate a round based on impacts in the 2NR and 2AR. An argument without an impact gets you nowhere. Weigh your impacts for me. If you can paint me a clear picture of the debate round and why you won, I am much more likely to vote for you. Be kind.
I love Kritiks, but you need to put in the work. I do not like vague links and warrantless claims.
I think counterplans are best when they are unique and creative, but I will consider pretty much any counterplan. Its up to the AFF to tell me why a certain type of counterplan should not be allowed.
I have no problem with speed, but you must be clear. If I can't understand you, I will yell clear. I will not flow arguments that I could not hear. I will not evaluate arguments that I did not flow.
Be kind and respectful. If your opponent is being abusive, tell me why its a voting issue.
Being involved in debate for the last 40+ years as a competitor to retired coach, I am one to believe in the reason for the activity. Thus, when it comes to judging, I follow the traditional routes. For CX it is all about stock issues with a hint of DAs, CPs, etc. I am not a fan of Kritiks or game playing so try to avoid it if possible. Solvency carries a lot of weight with me. Give voters at the end.
For LD, I love a great clash between values and criterions. Don't dismiss this aspect because to me this is where the original "framework" resides. CPs in LD will be judged based on the CX perspective and thus must be mutually exclusive and competitive. DAs must be presented to evaluate a CP. Give voters at the end.
Public Forum is more of a discussion for me and not necessarily based on card after card after card! Leave this for CX debate. Instead work on explaining and carrying the big picture in the round. No need to do line by line as time doesn't permit it anyway (unless you spread!). Plans and CPs have no role in Public Forum, so do not do it as I have no preference for this as an evaluator! Give voters at the end!
World School is relatively new to me as I have judge only about 10 rounds of it. However, I have judge many parliamentary debate rounds (high school and college) and they tend to relate as the same. I see it as a contest of teamwork to develop reasonable substantive arguments and this is where I will give all my attention to. Don't argue too much on the definitions and burdens as I will be made to select on my own experiences vs. yours (from the world issues). Since NSDA governs WS, I will look to their judges' training mechanism to evaluate every round so make sure you follow the guidelines set by them. Speaker duties are important to make the round what it should look like. Do not make this a CX round and with that, counter mechanisms should be NON-TOPICAL! Speak well and give plenty of eye contact to me as I will be the one to make a final decision as to what is "best" to either uphold/deny the proposition. Good luck!
email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
In all debate formats, I am looking for link stories and fully developed argumentation. Please fully explain your ideas such as debate theory and include impacts in your explanations.
Policy - I am a policy maker
LD - I'm slowly warming up to policy techniques in this format. Yet, value/criterion/framework will always be a priori when I make a decision. I like to see the connections of how the framework influences your cases and argumentation.
PF - I'm always looking for argumentation and clash.
Interp - I go down the questions on a ballot and look to see techniques like distinguishing characters and how you block.
What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I like good introduction that sets the tone of the speech. How much evidence do you prefer? I prefer a minimum of three pieces of evidence for each focus area. I think you get more analysis when you have something to analyze. I would like to hear good warrants with your claims. Implications are good. Any preference for virtual delivery? I’m in between. I can see standing up and moving to mimic in person, but it’s hard to hear. I can handle sitting down with good gestures and eye contact as well. I’m listening nite for speech. If round is close round then I start liking at technicalities and then the most persuasive.
What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery? Minimal evidence. I would like speeches to be unique or silly ideas in a new way. No preference for virtual
Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events? Love them. I like the tongue in cheek humor.
Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? No
What are your thoughts on character work? Necessary
I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.
I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.
Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.
Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.
Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.
One More Concern:
There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.
I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.
Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.
I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.
I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.
1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.
TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.
If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.
General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.
Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.
First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.
SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES I used to say I’m good with LD level of spreading but Policy was too much. In today’s world, I definitely feel like that has flipped as I have had more trouble with the speed in LD rounds versus Policy. In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.
Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.
I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.
Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below
If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.
I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.
LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories. You decided to run it, now you can explain it.
PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.
Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will impact your speaks if you use them as such.
You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.
Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.
My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:
- Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
- Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
- Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
- Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)
Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.
Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.
Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:
- Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
- Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
- Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
- Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?
To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:
- Follow precedence with few mistakes
- Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
- Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking
Updated -Nov. 2021
Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS
I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity). My coaching style is focused on narrative building. As a debater I mainly relied on clean line by line extensions and sought out ways to sever my opponents' links. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. Big Picture, traditional impact calculus is preferred, but I am open to more progressive approaches to debate. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.5. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. More in depth explanations provided below.
Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant.
I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. "Framework" in PF is not necessary and I think it takes away time that can make arguments more substantive. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links. It's lazy, for example, to run a Cap K shell, and then assume I will extend the offense just because I am familiar with the argument. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. Too many rounds would an team ask for a card, and it ends up not being paramount in the round. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.
I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.
I'm used to high speeds in LD rounds, I'm usually annoyed when you stumble or don't articulate while spreading. I think if you choose to spread, then you should be good at it, so I will not say "clear" or "slow" if I can't understand you. I will just not flow your arguments. You are welcome to send me speech docs (email@example.com) but I won't fill in gaps in my flows after the fact. This is unfair for debaters who are able to convey themselves clearly on the flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing. I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because there is not enough substance in theory debates. If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I am likely to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are have very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.
I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions. I don't like to vote on Topicality because its usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.
I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.
I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.
- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.
- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.
- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.
- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.