Tabroom.com

Roberto Orci Spring Woods TFA Tournament

2021 — Houston, TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sharif Abouleish Hire

Last changed on Fri November 19, 2021 at 3:13 PM EDT

NEW: please email or flash cases if spreading. saabouleish@gmail.com. For probably my most controversial paradigm, see R.O.B. For the current topic, I've been really vibing with Phil args.

Argument Prefs:

-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.

Speaker Points:

-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.

Rafael Acosta Hire

Asmau Adanlawo Hire 8 rounds None

Clement Agho-Otoghile Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Jazmine Alejos Hire

Brett Bonnete Hire 8 rounds

Matthew Davidson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 16, 2020 at 4:58 AM CDT

These days I only do this as a favor to people, so I do not judge these events nearly as much as I once did. As a result, do not assume that I possess specialized knowledge about the topic.

My background is in policy debate, though I've judged pretty much everything at this point, having done this since the 1990s. Specifically, I competed in CX debate in high school and debated at UT-Austin before the NDT-CEDA merger. I've also done some informal coaching over the years-- at one point in my life judging nearly every week, travelling with teams to national circuit tournaments, cutting evidence, etc., but it's been a number of years since I was that involved in the activity. In general, you can assume that I'm reasonably competent and can accurately flow arguments better than most judges you're likely to encounter on the local circuit. As long as you are clear, I should be able to keep up with virtually any level of speed, though you probably don't want to push the envelope in debates over Zoom.

I don't usually get assigned to judge acting and performance events, but I've judged many such rounds over the years (including at big, important tournaments), and I usually end up ranking competitors very much like judges for whom that is their primary area of expertise.

I endeavor to let debaters define the standards for the debate, especially since I no longer do this as much as I once did. I have no problem voting based on frameworks with which I personally disagree. To the extent that I have strong prejudices, it is against frameworks that advocate punishing debaters for supposed fairness violations that are more reasonably confined to the argument in question; this is especially true when a debater deliberately over-engages a line of argumentation so as to "prove the abuse" in the final rebuttal. Generally, I feel that debaters choose their own time allocation, and strategic errors are on them-- though I'm less dogmatic about this in LD, since the way the activity has evolved sometimes pushes up against time limits designed for a style of debate from a bygone era.

I have no problem with critical arguments, and you can safely assume that I've read at least some of the primary philosophical literature from which the most popular Kritiks derive. Debaters probably understand their specific argument better than I do, but my experience is that I generally understand the broader context for the argument better than anyone in the room. This is not meant to be read as arrogant, merely as informative about my own background and interests.

I feel like this is already going on a bit, and my experience is that debaters generally ignore most information that judges give them before the round anyway, so I'll close by highlighting three important(ish) things to understand about me.

First, if you're not impacting your arguments, you're deferring to me to do it for you, and you might not like the way that I weigh the relative importance of the issues in the round.

Second, debaters sometimes assume that if they're winning an argument that this means that there is now zero implication for the argument that they're rebutting, whereas I am very loathe to assign more weight to an argument than it actually merits. The classic case of this is a debater cutting into the uniqueness of a scenario and assuming that the scenario now just goes away, but my strong inclination is to look instead at how much uniqueness is being lost (seeing uniqueness as a sliding scale, rather than as a binary). On the other hand, some arguments have more implication than debaters sometimes assume, especially on theory debates. For example, winning a competing interpretations view of topicality means that I'm looking for the best possible interpretation of the resolution (even if means that the ground division in that round is not fair), and winning a reasonability standard means that I no longer care about the best interpretation at all (so long as there is fair ground in the round for each side).

Third, I am very receptive to risk analysis that points out that there is a mismatch between the magnitude of the link and the impact that results from it. Just like I default to a view of uniqueness as a sliding scale, I feel the same way about links. This has implications for both policy issues and critical debates. Tiny links don't generally translate into much of a risk of huge impacts, and I'm more than happy to entertain challenges to the internal uniqueness or threshold of each step of a causal chain before it cascades into the worst case scenario. However, none of this should not be interpreted as a willingness on my part to dismiss arguments out of hand because they are "ridiculous" or "not real world;" I have a much higher threshold for what constitutes an actual argument than that. Instead, I want to make clear that I will take seriously attempts to poke holes in a logical chain (even if the other side has more carded evidence); not all judges do in my experience.

Derek Davis Alief Kerr High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:08 AM EDT

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

Obinna Dennar Hire

Brianna Donson Hire 8 rounds None

Tyler Gamble Hire 8 rounds

Tyler Gamble The Kinkaid School

Abeal Ghebrelul Alief Kerr High School 8 rounds None

Seth Goodwin Memorial High School None

Riley Quinn Hardwick Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 1, 2023 at 3:06 AM MST

riley.quinn.hardwick@gmail.com

DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

Each format has its own unique attributes, and you should always respect those attributes unless you explicitly read theory which compels me to respect your shirking of those attributes. I am willing to vote on unorthodoxy, but I have to have an important reason to vote on that unorthodoxy.

I am a former CX debater and a tab judge. CX is the format I'm most familiar with, but I have debated and judged virtually every format. When I say I am a tab judge, I don't mean to communicate that I won't evaluate claims based on my own knowledge and experience. If your case relies on my acceptance of your argument that the sky is red, you aren't going to win. I am a tab judge in the sense that you should not assume any one paradigm from me.

My philosophy is that each round has its own rules and must be evaluated depending on what emerges in-round. You should always tell me what is the focus of the round and why. Tell me what framework is most important, tell me what my role is, tell me what the role of my ballot is, tell me which voting issues are the most critical. Otherwise, I will make those decisions based on my own experiences and values.

It is not my job to automatically recognize an argument you are making or extend an argument on your behalf. I'm well-versed in a lot of the theory that might come up. But I prefer being exposed to new, niche, creative approaches and ideas. The caveat to that preference is I'm not well-versed in ideas I haven't yet been exposed to. Please loop me in.

Both traditional and progressive arguments are fine as long as you do them well. Don't ask me whether I prefer one argument over another, or whether I prefer one set of values over another. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's your argument to make. Context and evidence is everything, and it is very likely that I will prefer a sensible and empirically-backed argument over a sensible analytic. What I will say is that some arguments are extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to prove to me. For example, capitalism is a good or sustainable economic system, immigration causes overpopulation, the world is overpopulated, racism isn't alive and well, etc. I've seen ideas like those circulating in the debate space for a while. I don't know if debaters actually believe ideas like those, or if those are desperate grabs at a win, but don't run them on me. I would rather you collapse on ideas you are winning and prove to me why those are paramount voting issues than throw bigoted spaghetti at the wall and hope that breadth impresses me. It won't.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:

You frame the round and my flow determines the W. In order to win my ballot, you must 1.) provide a framing mechanism or specify which framing mechanism should be preferred and why 2.) win offense to that framing mechanism and prove that your advocacy has the strongest link to that framework and 3.) provide an impact calculus.

I always use gateway issues (T, theory, framing) to help frame my decision. If those issues don't come up, or their clash lacks depth, I consider how well each team has met their burden and allow that to frame my decision. Notice that I say this is how I frame my decision. This alone will not win you my ballot. I vote holistically. You might win one important issue and lose every other issue on the flow, resulting in an overall loss.

Be considerate about how you construct your case, how you write analytics, and how you organize your speeches. I am a bit of a gamesplayer in that I track how the flow of your speech mirrors your opponent's flow. Spending the bulk of a constructive speech reading your evidence into the round without reading offense on your opponents' case or reading defensive arguments is poor strategy. Collapses should be intentional, not an accident resulting from mass concession.

Your advocacy suite should be strategically organized and directly communicated so as to make the decision abundantly clear for me. I want clear extensions, roadmapping, and signposting. If you are going to roadmap, give me a detailed roadmap of the distinct arguments you plan to cover in your speech. Do not tell me the order will be 'aff and then neg', or something to that effect. Those are literally the only two sides we will be discussing in any debate round. It's a given that you will cover one or the other at some point in the round.

INTERP EVENTS:

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a slate (contextualizing the piece, stating the theme, listing the title[s] and author[s] of the source material[s], and reiterating the central theme of the piece), complete the exposition, rise into the climax, and then fall into the resolution.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and your binder to block different elements of your piece or characterize different characters. Utilize eye contact considerately as well.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Utilize vocal inflection, pacing, clarity, enunciation, accents (where appropriate), and volume to discern between different characters and different scenes. The intentional application of these elements can be used to juxtapose different elements, emphasize important ideas, and discern between different characters.

Physically move from point to point in accordance with the speaker's triangle. Use gestures to illustrate or emphasize points

The plot of your piece should be clear and easy to map. Whether you are utilizing one source or multiple sources, your piece should be paced and organized with lots of consideration. You should fully embody each character depicted, and there should be a clear distinction between each characters, each scene, each action, and each section in your piece.

SPEECH EVENTS:

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a roadmap, two to three supporting arguments, a restatement of the roadmap, and a conclusion. Stick closely to this organization and signpost generously throughout your speech. Use verbal transitions and the speaker's triangle to help map your speech.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally throughout your piece. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and other elements to make your piece moving, memorable, and engaging. Utilize eye contact as well. Look at your judges and your audience-don't look through us.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Except on rare occasions when you may exercise a characterization, you should maintain even pacing, appropriate projection, varied inflection, vocal clarity, and a confident, conversational style. Avoid coming off as meek, stilted, confused, monotonous, etc.

For original oratory, make sure you clearly define your personal connection to the content in your introduction and conclusion.

For informative oratory, make sure your visual aids are simple, straightforward, easy to read, easy to decipher, and actually enhance your speech. Any attempts at humor are always a plus.

For any speech event, ensure that you are citing a healthy amount of sources in your speech. I like a balance between qualitative and quantitative evidence in the speeches I judge.

Content and presentation are equally important to me. I prefer three point speeches, but I will always prefer a holistically superior two-point speech to a superficial and sloppy three-point speech. The content should have depth and be logically organized.

Beck Hassen Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Mon August 1, 2022 at 8:59 AM CDT

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2017 to 2021. Cleared at TFA State twice, got a silver bid, went 5-2 at Glenbrooks once, etc, but overall I'm no Roy Tiefer.

You are extremely encouraged to read theory or a k. When I judged LD, people actually took my paradigm seriously and read crazy arguments, so I hope you'll do that here. I also don't know this topic very well. Specifics on progressive debate are near the bottom of my paradigm. Auto 29.7 speaks (or higher) if you actually do read something unconventional. Here's some other ways to get good speaks:

Reading "cut card" theory (something along the lines of "debaters must not read cut cards"): Auto 30

Calling your opponents out for not extending impacts

Making any joke

Turning 360 degrees when reading a turn

Paraphrasing Case

Skipping GCX

Conceding a delink/nonunique to kick out of turns

Kicking case

Finding a way to mention Palau (Auto 29.3 or higher)

How to LOSE speaks:

Offtime roadmaps that are too complicated for no reason

Not extending impacts

Laughing too much during round when nothing funny is being said (don't be rude to your opponents!)

Saying “we outweigh on ___________” with zero explanation

Calling for more than 4 pieces of evidence

Asking your opponents "have you sent the card yet?" more than once: No more than 27.5

AFTER ROUND: I'm happy to disclose and give critiques, but only if y'all don't aggressively postround me. I used to think postrounding was totally fine but I'm new to judging so I won't be perfect. Please remember that I am literally not allowed to change my decision

bh9831a@american.edu for any inquiries.

Regular paradigm:

Debate is a game. Strategy is what makes the round fun. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as you win the argument on the flow. I'm not going to be one of those judges who says "ohhh yeah i'm tech over truth but if your argument is dumb my threshold for responses goes down haha" because if they say that then they're really truth over tech and kind of a lay judge.

Specifics:

SIGNPOST!!!!! Also number your responses/arguments, helps me know where to flow which means I'm more likely to make the right decision

First Rebuttal - No rules. Read a new contention, who cares. I love a ton of DAs or turns, but they NEED warrants and analysis. I always got super annoyed when teams read a ton of 5-second turns and won off of them simply because the opponents weren't even given a warrant to respond to. Also paraphrasing is highly encouraged.

Second rebuttal - This speech needs to address to everything from first rebuttal. If something goes unmentioned in second rebuttal, it's conceded. Also if you're gonna collapse you have to do it here, don't leave your opponents in the dark before first summary

Weighing in rebuttal is fine, but don’t do it too much because it means you don’t have enough real responses. I love weighing overviews and stuff like “if we win our case we win the round” but spending too much time on weighing in rebuttal will show me that you don’t actually know how to respond to your opponent’s arguments. There are exceptions to this, like if there's framework involved, but that's my general thoughts.

Summary - First summary must extend everything that could be in final focus, even defense.

Most importantly, extend impacts. I’m pretty tough about this because I lost a bunch of rounds during my sophomore year over winning the flow but failing to extend an impact. If your opponent doesn’t extend an impact in first summary, you could stand up and just extend your case and an impact, frontline your case, and say “they don’t extend an impact,” and you'll win. No impacts = no offense. If neither side extends impacts, I presume first speaking team.

Grand Cross - Skipping this is extremely encouraged.

Final focus - yeah same thing as summary

Weighing - I guess on this issue I am different than most "tech" judges. I think weighing is overrated. Every judge says they loooooooove weighing then they don't vote on it. The reason why is you can have flawless weighing on every level of the round but if you drop one piece of terminal defense, you lost your case so your weighing becomes useless. I had just 4 rounds in high school where the judge voted off weighing. It's not that important most of the time. The reason why is because in almost every single round, both sides don't win equal access to their offense, so weighing isn't needed for a decision because one side always has a better link chain. So focus on the path to the impact, not comparing them.

Most impact weighing is redundant, unless both sides win their links into their impacts, in which case it can make the difference of the round.

Link weighing is defense. Also, if your opponent drops something, it becomes 100% true in the round, so therefore it has 100% probability. I am inclined to vote on probability weighing that says something along the lines of "they dropped it so it's 100% true, but their case has defense on it so it can never be 100% true."

Most of all, I love prerequisites and short circuits. These are easily my favorite arguments in debate and I made them a lot in HS. The great RJ Shah taught me to look at all the arguments in the round and see if you could connect any of them to garner more offense, and doing that always seemed to surprise judges and win more rounds. Going beyond surface level offense and defense is quite impressive.

Other unconventional debate positions

I love watching frivolous theory/k debates. You can run (almost) any type of these arguments. Just win it like any other argument. Similar story with impacts goes here - if a k doesn’t have a role of the ballot, it’s not a k. If theory doesn’t have “drop the debater” I can’t vote for you off of it.

- I won’t listen to “drop the argument” shells, make it fun and read drop the debater. It's like winner takes all!!!

- I will listen to paraphrasing theory, but I'll also listen to "cut card" theory. I believe paraphrasing is a good norm in debate and reading cut cards is a waste of time. So if you'd like to read a shell that says debaters should paraphrase, do it. Even if you lose, I will give you double 30 speaks just for being bold enough to read the argument.

- I won't evaluate identity k's

- You don't need to wear a mask. A lot of people have told me they're just wearing it so that they don't get a shell read on them. Don't worry because I will drop any team that reads something along those lines with the lowest speaks I'm allowed to give. Nobody should ever be penalized in a debate round for their decision on whether to wear a mask, and feel free to do so if you'd be more comfortable.

Evidence

Please stop calling for so much evidence. Trying to be perceptually dominant by calling for 7 pieces of evidence after your opponent's constructive and then asking them every 30 seconds "did you send the evidence yet?" when they clearly haven't won't work on me. This is a very rude and condescending strategy. It might work on lay judges, but I'm gonna dock your speaks if a) you call for more than 2 pieces of evidence after any speech or b) you ask "did you send it yet?" more than one time. If you can't find the evidence, that's alright (most of the time), just make a logical analysis that says the same thing. As I said, debate is a game, and you are just as much a part of it as some random author from the Washington Post.

I will not call for cards. It's interventionist. For example, if a team says "omggggg their evidence is bad pls call for it" and the opponents don't contest that claim, I am not calling for it, because you won that evidence contest on the flow just like how every other argument works. If you do call them out for bad evidence ethics and they push back and say "no the ev is good pls call for it," I'm still not calling for it. If you're making an indict, tell me what specifically makes the evidence so bad. If you're contesting a team's indict of your evidence, then tell me what specifically makes your evidence good, or why your argument still stands without it. Evidence weighing should be more common in debate and I'll go with the team that best defends their claim rather than calling for the evidence to decide for myself.

Melissa Hernandez Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 5:37 PM CDT

LD -

Traditional judge - do not mix LD with Policy debate
Framework - make sure that your v and vc are upheld throughout the entire case
Moderate speed is fine; remember that if I cannot flow your case then you will more than likely won't do well in the round
I want to hear impact not an overwhelming amount of cards - how do you interpret your cards for them to uphold your case's stance on the resolution?

PF -

Absolutely no spreading
This is a people's debate, please make sure that your case displays a cohesive development of your critical thinking skills
In this debate, you are speaking to an average person, do not treat like I am an expert
Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal

Speech -

I value a clear and organized speech that contains strong and profound analysis.
Creativity is another important aspect as well. Let yourself shine by delivering your speech in the most memorable way to make yourself stand out.
Citations!! Please do not give me a speech about a topic that is not cited. How do I know your analysis is credible if it is not supported by a source?
Your critical thinking skills should stand out when performing; meaning that the topic chosen should be developed progressively rather than having points that sound repetitive or do not correlate to the topic at hand.
Remember that the time of the speech does not matter when the content of the speech has given nothing.

A few general points -

I do not want to be on the email chain
I will not disclose during prelims
Do not ask me about speaks
Please treat your opponents and judge with respect and integrity; this is supposed to resemble a professional environment meant to develop your communication skills
If you bring spectators to round, please make sure that YOUR spectators respect the flow of the round. Once you enter room, they are there from start to finish. I will not tolerate an interruption of the concentration and flow of the participants and the judge. I will leave a note on your ballot for your coach to review or speak directly to your coach.

Justin Hoang Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Sat February 5, 2022 at 7:17 AM CDT

For online debate, I am more inclined to give highest speaker points to both parties, since internet issues can result in some speech not coming through clearly. With that leeway being said, there's still some points in the speaker point section that would greatly benefit you chances of winning the round, so if you do read the entire paradigm, don't shy away from it.

During the constructive speeches, make sure you are clear. I cannot stress this enough. If you decide to spread, at the very least, be clear. Most people don't have a problem with being clear but actively annunciate. (doing this in all speeches is preferred)

I really like the 1st crossfire. There's a lot of good things that can come out of 1st crossfire that the other crossfires can't necessarily benefit from. 1st speakers start with 29 speaker points and 1st crossfire can really boost y'all up to 30. Make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.

Rebuttals should have weighing, which is something most people don't do, but would help the round move more smoothly. Attack wise, I always prefer line-by-line, but going big picture won't cost you the round. 2nd speakers start with 28 speaker points. A good rebuttal with clear signposting and line-by-line gets y'all 29 speaker points. Weighing will add another .5 speaker points.

2nd crossfire should have a lot of hardball questions now that your opponent's strategy is more clear. Like the 1st crossfire, make it productive and polite, yet still, be aggressive.

Both summary speeches need to incorporate defense brought up in rebuttal. On top of that, establishing your path to the ballot is key here. Weighing is the best way to gain a speaker point if you didn't get it in the 1st crossfire. If you don't say it in summary, your partner can't say it in the final focus. That's pretty normal for most rounds, but I will actively listen for new arguments and actively not write them down.

Grand crossfire is a time to have fun. You can expand on summary arguments, so "new arguments" are sort of allowed. Establishing dominance is key in this crossfire because if you as the individual are dominant, you can make up for the speaker point you didn't get in the other speeches. That being said, being dominant doesn't mean being mean. There is a perfect middle ground that most people can get to. If you are being mean, you won't lose speaker points, but if you actively insult your opponents, expect you and your partner to lose speaker points.

Final Focus is my favorite speech. First, voters. If you don't have voters from the summary, you can't win. Making new arguments is bad. My summary speech paradigm explains this pretty well. This is where 2nd speakers can get their final speaker point for straight 30s. The way you do that is pretty easy: give me your voters and tell me why I should value your voters over your opponents. The 1st final focus will have a harder time on this, but it's not impossible especially considering that you heard your opponent's summary.

For reference, I did Public Forum for 4 years with Lincoln Douglas and a couple of speech activities sprinkled in around.

Something that does bother me for some reason is when an entire speech's time isn't filled up. Do try to fill it up as much as possible. If you don't, I'm hoping you only have at most 30 seconds left of the speech. If your speech is shorter than that, I am inclined to remove .5 speaker points. However, comma, if there really isn't anything left to talk about in your speech and there is more than 30 seconds left in your speech, DO NOT RAMBLE. I sometimes rambled on at the end of my speeches because I had nothing so say, and it didn't add to my argument. State the facts and be done with it.

Empirics is something that each team should have. Straight empirics are more important than philosophical arguments to me. If you do run theory, don't call it a theory. It's not terribly hard to adapt theory to PF, but if your opponents call you out for theory, I may just drop the whole theory from the debate. You be the judge of when it'll be appropriate. If you do use theory, I will tell you at the end of the round if I valued it or dropped it. If I dropped it, feel free to attempt to convince me that I should've valued it. If you slip up and get angry and yell at me, I'll call the cops. That's a joke. I won't get offended, I know what it's like to lose an argument that I spent a lot of time developing both outside and during the round. Please be nice and don't waste time.

Something I tend to hear in PF now is a colorful analogy. I really like analogies because it makes it more family friendly for lay judges and tired judges. What I like more than analogies are references. If you make a bad reference to pop culture, you lose .5 speaker points. So don't spend too much time on analogies. A good reference will follow nonnormative meme culture (if you don't know what that is, I would shy away from pop culture reference and stick to vanilla analogies).

If you have any specific questions, ask me. Most judges will be a little peeved if you just ask "What are your paradigms?" instead of specific questions, but I won't get mad. Ask.

If you have scrolled this far, welcome to the LD Paradigms.

I absolutely need clear roadmaps for each speech. It will help me be able to catch all the important details as well as your opponent in order to have a productive exchange of arguments.

I do not mind progressive debate. Progressive debate is a staple of LD and can be used very effectively. However, I will not value progressive aspects of the debate over physical evidence directly pertaining to the Resolution. Feel free to ask specific questions about certain strategies before the round starts in order to make sure that what you are utilizing isn't too farfetched and way out of left field.

SPEECHES

The 1AC is simple. Feel free to spread, do what you need to do to get everything out on the table.

The 1NC is a little less simple. Anything not addressed by the Negating side is assumed to be conceded for the Affirmative side. This will make is easier for the round as a whole, but harder for the Negating side for obvious reason. Even if it is just mentioned briefly I will still let it fly as you addressing it and you can clarify further in CX or the NR.

CX as a whole should be respectful, but also definitely demanding. whichever side is questioning has a lot of power to drive the narrative, so use the full force of the examination. In PF, CX can get a little disrespectful and it can hurt speaker points, which is why I am most likely not going to deduct any speaker points based on CX performance. I will only add speaker points.

1AR's focus should be a rebuttal of course, but there also needs to be plenty of weighing. This will make it easier for me to find the path to the ballot for the Affirmative. Any weighing not done here cannot be brought over to the 2AR.

The NR has the hardest job. Not only do you have to rebut all terminal attacks, but you also have to weigh and give me the Negating side's path to the ballot. New arguments in the NR won't be written down by me, but like I said in the 1NC, if you at least mention your attack and give some brief understanding of where you're going, you can further extrapolate on that idea in this speech.

2AR should almost be a mirror of the 1AR in my opinion. No new arguments, only crowd control is allowed. If something truly diabolical is said in the NR, go ahead and address it, but make sure it has direct relevance to your speech content.

SPEAKER POINTS

It's pretty easy to get 30 speaker points. I'm fairly nice about it. The way I give speaker points is the Affirmative side starts with 27 speaker points and the Negating side starts with 28. I will add speaker points with each speech you give. As long as you are clear when you spread you will probably get the point.

But let's assume you choke up in your 1AC and either don't finish your case reading or you skipped too far down and missed an important link. It's alright because if you perform well under the pressure of your opponent's questioning in your CX, I will give you .5 of a speaker point back to you. In order to get the other half of the speaker point, you must ask important and relevant questions in your CX of the Negating side, making sure you keep your opponent in check while still being somewhat respectful (but go ahead and be rude it's more fun that way). And of course, this works for the Negating side as well, these terms are not exclusive for the Affirmative side. For obvious reasons, I can't give more than 30 speaker points (I don't think).

Like my PF paradigm, ask any and all questions you have before the round starts. If you have any questions during the round you would like to ask me, feel free to do so. I can understand the stress of debating and now having technology as the middle man will jumble up your mental processes. It will disrupt the immersion and flow of the round, but if it's a necessary question then it's a necessary evil. Just make sure it doesn't happen more than once or twice.

If there are any questions or concerns after the round regarding either my paradigm or RFD, feel free to email me at jhoang19@mail.strakejesuit.org I might not get to it immediately, but if you make the subject line what round and flight you were for what tournament, I will be more likely to answer promptly

Nicholas Jennings Dulles High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:56 AM CDT

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com ,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

Jacob Koshak Cypress Woods

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 8:00 AM EDT

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

Varun Manickam Bellaire

Last changed on Fri January 27, 2023 at 1:50 PM CDT

Email: varun13m@gmail.com

Discord: VElit13#6805

Please add me to the email chain/Google Doc!

I am a junior Congressional (formerly did PF for 5 years) Debater for Bellaire(in Houston, Texas), qualified to TFA State in PF my freshman and sophomore year (if this helps). I started Public Forum in 6th grade at Lanier Middle School, and debated with them all three years of middle school.

(Paradigm inspired by Vedanth Ramabhadran)

General

OFF THE BAT, PLEASE DO NOT BE SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, ETC. Debate is a competitive and inclusive activity, and I expect that all of you uphold this. We're all in this together!

Tech > Truth (but please don't be ridiculous)

Please feel free to lighten the mood a little bit. Nevertheless, you should still be focused on the round and don't waste too much time bc you want to play around. A little bit of humor is appreciated and would make my job a little bit more fun.

I am ok with a little bit of speed but I really need to understand you. There are obviously an infinite number of arguments you can run in a short amount of time, but understand that I am more likely to flow you better if you speak slower.

AT ALL COSTS, PLEASE WEIGH!!!

Weighing is crucial for me to even evaluate the round. Your job as a debater is to offer me the clearest way to the ballot(make me do the least work in the round). To make the round even cleaner, please metaweigh(why one weighing mechanism is better than the other weighing mechanism)

I don't like to presume anything, but if it ever gets to that point, it'll probably have to be the negative side(but a round should never result in such a decision)

Please time yourselves(I might be timing as well). I'm fine if you go 5 seconds over time but in those 5 seconds you bring up a whole new impact/argument/etc, I am not going to flow it.

Warranting is crucial in every aspect of debate. Don't just say x happens. Tell me how/why x happens.

If you are Flight 1, please don't postround extensively(send me an email, text, message on Discord instead). If you are Flight 2, feel free to postround as much as you want. Regardless of the result, please be respectful of both your opponents and me.

Sharing cards should be a quick process, if it takes too long, it irritates me and gives me a doubt that you are stealing prep time(which is definitely frowned upon).

Don't comment on your opponent's speaking style(that is for me and me only to evaluate), you should interact with your opponent's arguments. Your job as a debater is to convince me on the flow.

If you are flight 1, you can take about 5-6 minutes to preflow your case in the room, but if you are flight 2, please preflow before the round.

Constructive

Just make sure you are clear and understandable. I prefer you send me your case a couple minutes before you start either on an email or Google Doc(so I can flow it easier).

Crossfire

If it becomes disruptive, I will note this down. I am not flowing it, but if something important happens, feel free to bring it up in the next speech.

Rebuttal

Responses should interact with the opponent's arguments, don't be generic and just read basic blocks and expect me to understand the response.

Implications are key when reading a turn for me to evaluate it.

First Rebuttal should be able to cover all the arguments on the opponent's side, feel free to use this time and introduce weighing! (The earlier, the better!)

Second Rebuttal needs to frontline(defend) the responses and attack the opponent's flow. If you drop any responses and the opponent extends it in summary, I consider it clean as it was conceded. I prefer you collapse in this speech(go for one argument).

Summary

This is the most important speech in the round. It really shows what arguments are going to be on the RFD(Reason for Decision).

The first summary needs to frontline the responses that you are collapsing on.

On the arguments you are not collapsing on/dropped, you don't need to address defense(Non-Uniques, De links, etc) but the offense needs to be responded to(esp. turns).

Proper extensions are necessary for me to evaluate it.

Please collapse(if you haven't already)!!! It is a strategic move and makes the debate a lot easier to evaluate!

This is also an area to bring up/address weighing(if not already).

Final Focus

Don't bring up new arguments in this speech.

Finish on a strong note and extend weighing and offense especially.

Speaker Points

My range is usually 27.5 to 29.5. If you earned a 30, you did an amazing job of vocal variation and made the round very fun to judge. If you earned less than a 27.5, it is likely because your speaking was very disruptive and/or you were being homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

Most importantly, please enjoy your experiences! Learn from your mistakes and you're more likely to do better if you have fun!

Gregory McGee Katy Taylor High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:18 AM CDT

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Jeremiah Menslage Hire

Ashley Moir Hire None

Ethan Moir Hire 8 rounds None

Adolfo Ivan Munoz Hire 8 rounds

Ryan Nassif Clear Lake High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:38 AM CDT

I'll start with this, since it seems to be the only question anyone cares about anymore: if you scale speed on a 1-10, with 10 being as fast as humanly possible, I prefer a 3-5 depending on the time of day (lower in the early morning or later evening).

Now, if you want more nuance: I'm the coach at Clear Lake High School in southeast Houston. I previously coached (and attended high school/competed at) Deer Park High School in Deer Park, TX. I've been a head coach for thirteen years and judging for the past eighteen.

As a CX judge, I find myself becoming more and more of a policymaker-style judge. I am a flow judge and am okay with moderate to faster levels of speed, however as an educator I feel that this is a communication event first. I'm not going to call for a bunch of cards if I didn't hear them, so please make sure I can actually understand you. Unless I'm judging virtually, I don't want to be on the email chain. On DisAds, I can't stand generic links and am incredibly unlikely to vote on them. Make sure your internal links also follow some kind of logical train of thought and tell a coherent story. I will vote on topicality, but I have a pretty high threshold for what I consider reasonably T. I don't love kritiks or deep theory debates but I'm also loathe to tell a debater that they can't run them at all just because of my personal feelings. With that said, please make sure that you explain your kritikal arguments, since philosophy has never been my forte.

As an LD judge, I do not have the experience as a competitor and judge that I do for CX. Because of that, understand I might need my hand proverbially held a bit if you dive deep into philosophy. I prefer a slower, traditional/old school style LD round with a strong emphasis on that quaint notion of a value framework. If you've somehow read the last couple of sentences and still think I'm the kind of judge that you should run tricks in front of... let me be clear that I'm very much not. If that's not the kind of judge you want - and I recognize that what I've written sets me far apart from the norm as far as what LD has become - then I encourage you to rank me as low as MJP will allow you. It'll make my life and yours much better.

I feel that PF shouldn't require paradigms (seriously, can we go back to the original intent of this event?), but since we're here... I really despise rudeness in crossfire, and I want to see a solid line-by-line throughout the debate with good impacting at the end. Don't overthink this.

I love Congress. I absolutely adore the event. If I'm in the back of a Congress round I'm a happy camper and I want to see polished, extemp-style speeches that show thought went into them. I also expect to see either clash or new argumentation in the speeches following the first couple of bill cycles, otherwise I feel the debate grows stale and boring. I want to see an attempt at collegiality and a little sprinkle of LARP'ing never hurt anyone.

I've never judged or even watched a WSD round in my life, but I'm coming around to the event and want to learn. If I'm in the back of your Worlds round... consider me a flay judge.

A quick run-down for speech/interp paradigms, since evidently that's a thing now?

Extemp: I love this event and for my money I think this is the best event we have as far as portable skills are concerned. I don't want or need you to be a citation machine, I'd prefer you take a handful of sources and build solid analysis around them.

OO/Info: These are my favorite events to watch and judge, and I love how much of an opportunity they give students to showcase their own unique voices. I like humor but don't want this to be stand up comedy (you're not Josh Gad, and that's perfectly okay). I want a clean performance with solid, memorable analysis. In Info, I love when the visual is something outside the norm; one of the most memorable Infos I've ever judged used a sealed plastic cup filled with water and an egg, and I still remember that (many) years later.

POI: I don't judge POI often but every time I do I'm blown away by how creative students can get within its parameters. I want to see a POI that's seamlessly blended and brings in as many disparate genres as possible. As with all interp, I want to see and hear the "story" you're telling me come alive. I also really like the idea of POI as a form of argumentation, so if I can see that clearly throughout your piece all the better for me. My thoughts on POI also cover (with obvious changes for the rules/norms) my thoughts on Prose and Poetry, for what that's worth.

HI/DI/Duet/Duo: I'm looking at the totality of the performance. Much like I mentioned on POI, I want to see and hear your script come to life through the interpretation. It's exceptionally rare that I get to judge these (I can't tell you the last time I have, to be honest), so I don't go into these rounds with any real expectations. I just want to be wowed overall.

Bao Nguyen Hire 8 rounds

Candice Nichols Hire 8 rounds None

Amanda Nobra Hire 8 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 2:57 AM CDT

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Eric Porter Challenge Early College High School 8 rounds

Nicole Price Hire 8 rounds None

Joyce Qian Memorial High School

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 12:14 AM CDT

ut austin '27 (government/economics/plan ii)

1A/2N in hs (memorial qp), not currently debating in college

email chain: gzqjudging@gmail.com

accomodations/disability notice: i have an auditory processing disorder. i probably can't type and process your highest unclear speed. err on the side of being loud and articulate well or i'm going to miss stuff. or send analytics. tired of ppl not respecting this cheers ^^

longhorn classic:ngl i forgot to fill out my ballots more so email me if you want more comments lmao

tldr: i think there are really only 4 things about me that you probably have to know

in round expectations: if you are unnecessarily rude and condescending at any point in time it will make me upset to vote for you and you will almost certainly catch a 25 (or lower than what i would originally think you deserve). i'm not going to expect you to be best friends but there's a bottom line. be reasonable and be kind

ivis/accessibility: i am very sympathetic to legitimate ivis. i don't think your opponent needs to run an ivi for me to down you if you're running something exclusionary. the moment that i see something exclusionary in any sense, i will not continue flowing and i will submit my ballot.

ideological background: i was almost solely an identity k debater in high school, but i went to policy-oriented camps (zag '20, utnif '19, utnif '21). i also read philosophy in my free time. i think this means i can evaluate most debates pretty well but i am probably best at judging identity k debates. i also come from the gonzaga camp of credentials matter which is the main opinion i have on larping.

competitive background: i did policy debate at memorial high school, competed on the nat circuit semi-regularly and did kind of decently my senior year. my partner and i were largely lone wolves for most of our careers. i was almost exclusively a 2N except for like 2 tournaments my freshman year and like one or two rounds my senior year. it highlights mistakes but hasn't really impacted my inclination to vote one way or the other.

larp debate:

credentials: i don't really have strong opinions on larp debate (or policy debate lmao) other than i think credentials and where authors are from can strongly sway the direction of the debate =)

kritikal debate:

literature: i am relatively familiar with most identity literature, and know more than enough to know if you're wrong. i am most familiar with [techno]orientalism, set col, and cap. i know buzzwords, but i never really got why you would use buzzwords instead of just explaining unless it was really necessary. take that how you will i suppose.

debating style: don't run like… an overview in front of me. i'd say this probably applies to poems and the sort too but i get how that's usually a part of the case. either way, i didn't know how to flow them in high school and i still don't know how to flow them. i never really saw a point unless it was explaining the thesis of the k, but you should not like. expect me to flow it lol. i'm not going to and i def will not flow it on another page

links: i gotta say i'm not suuuper into state links unless your k is sketchy and there's a reasonable chance you couldn't find a link, i strongly prefer specific k links, but i get it. i was a 2n at some point too, i'm not going to be mad if your link is generic (with restrictions)

but also as a 1A, people extrapolating obviously generic state links in the block (specifically to cap ks) were frustrating af because i had to make entirely new offense like 99% of the time. i am sympathetic to 1As who have to answer that, especially if your 1NC card clearly has no part that talks abt your extrapolation, UNLESS it's a sketchy aff where there are probably not easily available links. even links to one part of the topic are better lmao (probably the best tbh, that's what i usually did with my sketchy k).

kritikal affs: i actually really enjoy k affs and one of the parts of debate i really enjoyed was coming up with a story for the aff. feel free to run any sort of k aff in front of me, especially if it's a fun identity K affs. i like reading kritikal literature because i like rethinking some of the ways i view the world – i would like to see affs that do that.

framework: however, even as someone who ran k affs, i think many k affs fail to explain how their model of debate is good. you won't have a hard time convincing me that education is the terminal impact to framework but you should probably explain why theirs isn't good for education. i actually think i probably vote against framework more often than not, it's usually just not compelling enough to me because i think framework is often a way to not have to debate the substance of identity k affs (ie: a lot of people are uncomfortable with the fact that the world is in fact not good for a lot of people who live in it). disclaimer: go ham w it vs pomo affs lmao

topicality and theory:

topicality: i like topicality. i think it's overlooked as a viable 2NR strategy. i have no particular preferences on it.

theory: theory is fun when you're not being annoying about it. if you just dropped 11 points on the states cp on your opp who doesn't spread i'm not going to flow 50 states fiat. if you put it at the top and don't extend it and read 12 other points i am going to be kind of upset ngl why would you make me type it then. time sucks bad !

i generally am a firm believer in condo good. i don’t think that there’s a lot of instances where i lean aff, but use your judgement and be reasonable.

framework/t-usfg:

there are strategic ways to about this and there are unstrategic ways to go about this. i am probably most inclined towards education as a terminal impact to framework. like i mentioned at the top, the fact that i was from a small school (kind of) means that i am highly inclined towards structural fairness > procedural fairness and you will have a hard time convincing me that procedural fairness (see: you follow speech times) is still more important because it "rectifies in-round unfairness" or whatever. you literally get disqualified if you don't follow the rules – to me, i don't think people are motivated to follow the rules so people can equally access the debate space. feel free to argue otherwise

miscellaneous:

i will miss things, both because i am human and because i have a hearing disorder. if i missed an analytic it is not on purpose, but the chances of it changing my decision are low to none, especially because i strongly believe if it's going to sway the direction of the debate you should have slowed down on it.

i think debate is competitive but in no way has that ever meant "be rude" to your opponents.

i don't think sending docs counts as prep and you don't need to count it, but it's not like people can't tell when you steal prep lmao. i literally watched people prep for like 3 minutes after the timer was stopped. don't steal prep. i will call you out if i think you're taking too long.
i've been told many a time i look unhappy naturally. i'm probably not that upset about what you're reading - although i am very expressive. will try to keep it to a min but if i look confused or annoyed i am probably confused or annoyed, shockingly enough

Gurvinder Singh Rai Hire None

Michael Rutledge Clear Brook High School

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 2:16 AM CDT

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

Laura Sanchez Westchester Academy For International Studies

Bram Sebio-Brundage Hire 8 rounds

Daniel Shi Memorial High School

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:34 AM CDT

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

POST JUDGING TWO CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS THOUGHTS:

I don't know if I just did not care about it when I debated and judged regularly last year, or if there was some committee meeting where people decided just to toss evidence ethics completely out the window. It seems even worse than before. I saw a card that was tagged "Iran key for nuke war" then the card said in tiny unhighlighted font... "5 places where war could go nuclear." Authors, even at very credible websites write speculative pieces and opinion pieces that are being weaponized by debaters for cards with absolutely no regard to whether or not it is actually what the card says with context. Making something size 5 font does not make it go away if I catch anyone doing this... I will stop paying attention and drop you. No questions asked. I don't care if I'm the only one in the community that cares about this, if you can't be bothered to edit your case so it meets very high standards of evidence ethics, then PLEASE strike me.

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

I judge mostly these days for fun, and far less than I used to. I cover sports in my spare time for sports illustrated, Slow down from top speed.

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

Andy Stubbs Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Jay Stubbs Bellaire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:08 AM CDT

Name: Jay Stubbs

School Affiliation: Bellaire High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.

Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.

Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.

Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.

Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.

Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.

Congress

I evaluate your arguments in a Congress session in relation to your effectiveness in delivering them. An effective Congressional Debater is one who is committed to making sure that the judge understands the arguments and information they are presenting. When a debater's commitment is limited to getting information into the debate they are assuming that I will gain the same understanding of the information that they have.

Introductions should be creative when possible. Generic intros are frowned upon greatly.

Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis.

Devoting time to the summary/conclusion is very important.

Ending speeches at 3:00 is very important. Speeches ending at 3:10 show a lack of discipline and preparation.

Questioning should be focused on exposing weaknesses in opponent's arguments. Questions that cause little to no damage are of marginal value. There should never be a time when the questioner and respondent are both talking at the same time for more than a brief moment.

Respondents should view questioning as an opportunity not an adversarial activity. Attitude and unnecessary aggression will be scored lower. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable if there is no reasonable reason why you should know the answer. I would like to NEVER hear the answer "I am sure you could tell me." I can not tell you how much I really don't appreciate that response in a questioning period.

Gurjinder Toor Hire

Andrew Trinh Hire 8 rounds None

Lidia Velasquez Hire 8 rounds None

Luz Ventura Knowles Hire 8 rounds None

Alma Villareal Westchester Academy For International Studies

Harry Yu Memorial High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:38 AM CDT

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. 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. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. 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 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. 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. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. 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 or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. 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.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not 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 judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, 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 tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are 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.

CX Paradigm:

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 when it comes to policy debate. 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, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's 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.

Congress Paradigm:

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.

Some requests:
- 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.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

Login to Tabroom

Roberto Orci Spring Woods TFA Tournament

2021 — Houston, TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges