Tabroom.com

Lindale TFA NIETOC TOC Classic

2021 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Suman Behera Flower Mound High School

Advay Bhattacharya Flower Mound High School

Alexander Chase Hire

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 8:27 AM EDT

***In the interest of fairness, I'm going to be detailed and include some examples, so read the bold text if you're short on time.***

Hello!

My name is Alexander Chase, and I might be judging your round. I graduated from Royse City High School in 2013 and then from UT-Austin in 2017, where I studied economics and worked for The Daily Texan. I previously taught high school math and currently teach the SAT and LSAT. As a debate judge, I believe this is an educational exercise where I vote on a question, not for a person. I can handle a spread — please don't mumble — and I expect to receive what you read in some form before you start.

How I Vote

I have three rules for myself.

1. I only buy valid arguments.

Check up on your classic logical fallacies here. If your argument is not valid, I will not mark down your opponent for failing to address it, but I will still "flow" it so that I can explain to you later why it doesn't work. I don't extend this to forcing you to explain the justifications for utilitarianism-ish things in a constructive, and I do tend to trust publications in reporting facts. More than anything, I am very skeptical of appeals to authority, and I won't buy a card that's a statement of opinion without any warrants unless you give me a good reason to do otherwise. I'm also very wary of equivocation — abusing that two different authors used the same word but with very different meanings and contexts — as a means of linking arguments together.

Ex:

The worst offenders tend to be Žižek cards: everyone cuts out his warrants and data, and then themselves cannot explain them. This turns his source material into an appeal to authority — it's true because he says so — and that's not valid.

Any discussion of "-isms" can be ripe for equivocation: one writer's usage of capitalism will not necessarily be the same as another's. I don't automatically discard these, but when the evidence is there, I'm looking for it.

2. I don't pretend to be ignorant of the real world.

If you introduce information that is blatantly factually incorrect, I believe that I have the right to reject it. For very minor cases I might just dismiss your point. But if you're building your approach to the round on a lie in a way that is fundamentally unfair to your opponent, I will not hesitate to stop the round and vote you down. This means no cards discussing a brink that has already occurred, no fabricated evidence, and no misrepresenting others' views. If you cite a source, I'm not afraid to follow up on it. On the other hand, I'm also willing to buy off-the-cuff evidence after some fact-checking (e.g. if you want to cite the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers or the most recent electoral college odds from The Economist in a rebuttal but don't have them on hand, I'm willing to accept a ballpark number and verify it myself).

Ex:

The worst and most important example of this came in a round where the negative built their case around using an upcoming court case working as the "brink" card in a disadvantage. The only issue was that the case had already been decided, rendering their entire case moot. I voted for the affirmative even though the facts that were presented very, very clearly pointed toward a negative ballot. Don't lie.

3. I'm open to anything (in theory).

Interpret this as you will. I'm open to unconventional structure, but I want you to let me know where you're going. I'm also very open to you taking morally sticky positions or taking up unconventional value systems. You can argue an alternate theory of the ballot. But I always place the burden on the students to follow my first two rules. If I get no instructions otherwise, I'll default to a generic impact calculus with the greatest weight to probability and magnitude, and to vote to affirm when there is a preponderance of evidence that doing so is preferable to not voting affirmative.

Ex:

On the good side of things, I've voted many times for negatives that concede the framework and just run disadvantages. This works really well. I've also voted against debaters who run truly terrible theory shells that just declare new terms without any justifications. Debate is an exercise in argumentation, not in being weirder than your opponent know how to deal with.

Speaker Points

Besides how clear of a speaker you are, I tend to give speaker points largely in terms of how well you structure your rebuttals. And in the interest of fairness, here are a few things that I tend to like:

Tell me where you and your opponent disagree.

If there's one thing I dislike, it's when the round proceeds as two students see the round as a checklist of points to win by being right about the value, and then the criterion, and then all the contentions. It's not that. Our job is to answer a question; tell me where you disagree, and then tell me why your side is the correct one.

Tell me which boxes you need to check off to win.

I like a good framework. Winning framework means telling me why yours is preferable and then telling me how it affects how I make my decision. If util wins, tell me that the impact calc tells me which side to vote for. If something that isn't util is the best framework, tell me how to weigh the round.

Don't give me voters.

If you're correct, you're correct! There's no reason to list off five reasons why you've won! I'm not voting for you, I'm voting for your side.

Brennan Dufrene Garland High School

Ashlyn Teal Ellgass-Trokey Hire

Kristi Goemmer Bridgeland High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:52 AM EDT

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Avalos P-TECH School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

DON’T BE RUDE
I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS
It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage
Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues
I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage
Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.
Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

Stephen Green Caney Creek High School

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 11:49 AM CDT

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.

Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.

Extemp Debate

Most of my LD paradigm applies except for the LD-specific ideas like value and criterion. In general, I do not believe in the burden of rejoinder/“silence is compliance” in this debate, but I’m going to weigh the arguments that, in totality, support each side. Each side does have an affirmative burden of proof for their respective side. In general, convince me. Make me feel the arguments and reasons I should believe you. I’m looking for people to debate the resolution, not just each other.

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

Shivani Gupta Flower Mound High School

Last changed on Fri January 27, 2023 at 10:38 AM CDT

Hi! My name is Shivani (pronounced "shiv-ah-knee").

Add me to the email chain: shivanivg13@gmail.com

Debate TLDR: Flow judge (signpost please!!); Cards should be cut properly and not misconstrued. I'll call for evidence if your opponent asks me to or if I feel something is misconstrued. Any arguments backed by miscut cards will be dropped on my flow. Speed is fine as long as you're understandable. The email chain is not an excuse for you to be incomprehensible. You should not expect me to read everything in the doc (but please tell me if you didn't read something).

Speech TLDR: You'll generally do well if you speak fluently, have compelling content, and present yourself in an organized and confident manner.

Speech & Debate as a safe space: Tournaments should be a safe space. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. If I become aware of any violations of safety committed before, during, or after the round, I will give the violator the immediate L and minimum speaks. Be a good human :)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

LD:

Although I competed in LD for a year, I'm not the most well-versed in things like Ks, theory, T args, performative cases, phil, etc. If you want me to accurately evaluate the round, I highly advise against running any of those.Make sure any argument you want to run is carded properly, warranted, linked, and extended cleanly. Arguments without clear links or warrants will be dropped on my flow. Although I'm a flow judge, you need to do the work for me. Offense not extended in later speeches will not be evaluated when deciding the round. I don't care if your opponent failed to respond to your argument. If you don't bring it up and tell me to extend it across the flow, then I'll view it as you not going for it. The framework debate is essential in LD. At the end of the day, the framework debate tells me how to evaluate the round. Additionally, make sure you're telling me how to weigh impacts. I want to see strategic and effective impact calculus. Make sure there's clash between arguments and impacts. I need to see engagement from both sides. If the whole round is a wash and there's no clear offense, I'll default to aff because of time skew.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear and understandable. Reading at the speed of light and gasping every four seconds does not count as understandable. Make sure you signpost clearly if you want me to accurately flow the round. Slow down on important taglines or evidence to ensure they will properly be flowed. Generally, speaks will be decided on two things: fluency, impact calculus, and strategy/argumentation.

PF:

Most of the general argumentation stuff is similar to my LD paragraph: flow judge, have warrants/links/clean extensions, dropped arguments need to be brought up to be extended on the flow, clash is important, signpost etc.

I'm ok with speed, but I think PF has a lower threshold for speed than LD. Speaks will be awarded based on fluency, impact calculus, and argumentation/strategy.

World Schools:

Strategy is exceptionally important in WSD. You need to have a clear advocacy/framework/voter issue. Arguments should have warrants and clear links to the greater advocacy. I want to see logical arguments, effective impact weighing, and eloquent delivery. WSD should be performative. You should be passionate and clashing with the other team. Unlike other debate events, arguments should be more realistic than hyperbolic. Speech and overall structure are very important. Contentions should build upon each other and so should speeches. There should be a clear connection between team speeches in style and strategy. Be organized and do the flow work for me (extend and defend clearly).

Extemp:

I'll evaluate speakers based on the following criteria (ranked in order of importance):

1. content and analysis

Extemp is a mix between speaking and debate. There needs to be clear content, links, warrants, and impacts. Tell me how your topic plays out in the past, present, and future. Points need to be unique and evidence needs to be furthering your argument. Analysis is extremely important! Failure to do so will result in you being ranked down. Don't just recite evidence, tell me what it means, how it applies to the issue, and why it matters.

For points: I'd rather have 2 well hashed out points than 3 mediocre and ineffectively analyzed points. If you do decide to go for 2 points, however, make sure your speech still reaches the 6-7 minute mark.

2. presentation/fluency

Make sure you're performing. Are you being persuasive or simply reciting facts? Are your body movements contributing to the points being made. Are you confident in what you're saying or stumbling over your words? Are you communicating effectively?

3. flow of speech/organization of points

Points should connect to each other. Ideally, they will build upon one another. Does your AGD and intro effectively introduce the topic? Do your transitions direct the flow of your speech?

4. uniqueness

Is your AGD unique or have I heard it a million times before? Do you have a unique speaking style rather than being the cookie-cutter extemper with no personality? You need to stand out. Your speech could have the best content ever, but if you're boring, I won't remember any of it.

Info/OO/Interp:

I follow most of the standard paradigms and norms of the events. As these events are memorized and prepared beforehand, there should be few to no fluency breaks. Make sure you're well rehearsed. You should be hitting around the same time for every speech/performance. Speed should be conversational and movements should be effective rather than random.

Info and OO should have good content and evidence. I prefer unique topics over the basic ones seen every year. AGDs and transitions should help your speech flow and build upon itself.

Interp pieces should be cut cleanly so that I can understand what is happening in the piece. Transitions should help the piece flow well from one part to the next. Blocking needs to be consistent and add to what you're saying.

At the end of the day, these events cater more to your preferences than mine. If you have a good and clean performance, I'll rank you high.

Sarah Heflin Grace Preparatory Academy

Dakota Hiltzman Hire

Lisa Howard Hire

Daniela Juarez Hire

Ally Perkins Hire

Bill Prater Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:21 AM EDT

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year. Here is my updated paradigm. This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate. This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate. I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate. You don't need to send me your case. I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read. So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about. I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it. That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate. Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges. As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.

Good luck!

Kayla Ramirez Caney Creek High School

Amey Sharma Flower Mound High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:34 PM CDT

Flower Mound High School '23, Debated PF 2 Years, Outrounds of Gold ToC, TFA, and Nats Senior Year

Email for chain: ameysemail@gmail.com

Sending docs before speeches is preferable.

TLDR: Tech>Truth, read fun stuff. Cool with spreading even though I can’t flow it that well, just send a doc. Collapse well, extend clearly, weigh, win. I really like debating and judging theory, defaults are below.

LARP: Basic substance paradigm, check out Eli Glickman, Amogh Mahambare, or William Erard's paradigms for good info. Weighing is really important and lots of teams don’t know how to do it right. Weighing arguments in an intelligent manner will make it easy for you to get my ballot. Organization and signposting are also really important and make it easier for me to vote. DON’T BE SCARED OF COLLAPSING ON A SINGLE ARGUMENT, EVEN A TURN. I really enjoy clean collapsing even if it’s on a turn on your opponents case. If it’s strategic, it’s a really good and fun way to win my vote and I’ll probably boost your speaks too.

Framework: I really enjoy philosophical frameworks and arguments. If you have a unique way of looking at and framing a certain resolution, please go for it. Kant and Util are pretty interesting to me and I have the most knowledge on them, but feel free to run other frameworks as well if you can explain them properly.

Theory: Very open to voting on theory especially regarding disclosure practices. I default to reasonability, no RVIs, and DTA. Give me reasons as to why your opponent has to provide a CI, be dropped for reading a shell, or be dropped for a violation and I’ll vote on them though.

K’s: Little to no experience against or running these, will require a lot of explanation if you want to run complex Kritiks but of course I’m open to voting on them. Probably have the most understanding of Mollow out of any Kritikal argument.

Tricks/TT: No problem with them, but try not to run them in Pf if you don’t have a decent understanding.

Speaks: I’ll mostly separate speaks from the actual debate and award them based on presentational ability, but strategic decisions and good organization also go a long way. I’ll give you a +.5 boost if you shout out a friend that’s quit debate OR Sid Thandassery before your speech.

John Sims Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

srivathsan sridharan Rock Hill HS

Hongnhung Stuart Stephen F Austin High School

Fiker Tesfaye Grapevine High School

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Antonio Valdez Pharr San Juan Alamo Southwest High School

Danny Vilson Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Last changed on Thu February 10, 2022 at 6:15 PM EDT

Logistics

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

Debate is a game so tech>truth
Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
defense isnt sticky
Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,

Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me

do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
Dont do "extend our link"

for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary

this also goes for arguments that are conceded

First summary

Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact

Second summary

This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
Defense must also be extended

Final focus

Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it

If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument

I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate

Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
I will vote for one team and one team only

I will evaluate theory

Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

Donts

Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading

This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices

Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other events

im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

Sha Wilson Snyder High School

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 1:47 PM CDT

Please call me Sha (pronounced like Shay) in round, judge is too formal for me and I would just much rather be called by my name.

If your going to do an email chain I want to be included: shawilson4521@gmail.com

About me: I did debate 4 years of high school in Texas (Godley 17-20, Snyder 20-21) which included 2 years of Lincoln Douglas as well as 2 years of policy. I'm now a member of the debate team at Missouri Valley College (21-present) where I do a little bit of everything on the debate side of things.

General:

Im generally fine with speed however I do have my threshold for it and will call clear when you reach that limit. It is possible to mumble or speak too quietly, especially in a virtual debate. Please make sure you enunciate clearly. Make your signposts and taglines very clear, so I know where to flow. You can be fast but I'd rather you be clear than anything else. I will give you two clears if I cant understand you and if you don't slow down after the 2nd clear I'm likely to drop speaker points slightly. I rarely read anything after the round unless theres just something super conflicted or messed up so if you tell me to go back and read before my decision without reasoning out why its so important for me to read I'm not gonna do that unless there is something inherently racist or messed up in said piece of ev that being said I do follow the ev in the speech docs during the speech. I cater to the different styles and don't have one that I prefer more over the rest. Truth over Tech I'd much rather you say something that is correct and make good arguments than try and out spread your opponent. Please don't be rude to your opponent I will remove speaker points or down vote because of this. Keep your own time but I will also be timing you just in case. I need you to weigh your arguments against your opponents and tell me why you won. Make taglines clear to me please, it makes it easier for me to flow what you are saying. In the end run whatever you prefer and what makes you comfortable. I am very laid back and will vote on just about anything but I need arguments to be weighed clearly for me to vote on them. Impact calc is super important to me and the more/better you do this the easier it will be for me to vote.

At the end of the day it's not my job to tell you what to run, I'm here to provide education and feedback not tell you to run something or not run something. Run whatever you are most comfortable running and what you enjoy running as long as things are clear I will vote for anything. If you have any questions about the round or you're interested in college debate feel free to reach out at the above email address.

Online Debate: Please make sure that your computer is plugged in or fully charged before starting, your mic is muted while the other person is speaking. Also, there is a good chance that tech problems may occur, please be cool about it. If there is a disconnect during a speech time will stop and the speaker will be responsible for picking up where they left off when they reconnect. I get that online debate adds a sort of weird complexity to it but lets try and make it run as smoothly as possible.

More specifics:

Policy:

Topicality

I enjoy a good T debate. I will vote for this a lot of the time if done well and proven abuse. Stock issues are still very important and in my opinion very fun. If you're going to run it, run it well. A good T arg is something really easy for me to vote on. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters. T is one of my favorite things to run and hear, if done well its a really easy way to win my ballot.

Disadvantages

Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted. DAs can be really fun and the more links you have the more fun they get. If you don't have good links I probably won't vote here but if thats all you have then run it.

Counterplans

I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP.

Kritiks

Just like disadvantages, I think Ks should have specific links. As the years have gone by I've gotten more knowledgeable about Ks but that being said if you run them you need to make the story clear for me, if I don't understand an argument I'm not gonna vote for it. Make sure you have more than just a reject alt. What does the alt call for us to do? What will a world in the alt look like? Ks can be really fun and a way to my ballot if done correctly, but I won't vote on this unless I understand exactly what the world of the alt looks like/what the alt even does. If you're gonna read a K aff make the story clear, while I'm not the most k aff person I will vote for them and when done well are really fun.

LD:

For ld I will vote on any arg that is ran well. The only thing I ask here is that you have a clear Value and or Value Criterion. I will not make any arguments for you if its not said I'm not connecting the dots so you either say it or it doesn't exist in the round to me. I want clear clash in the round, the more clear the clash is and you telling me where you're winning during said clash the more likely you are to get my ballot.

PF:

Clash, please clash. Good clash in a public forum debate makes for an excellent debate. When both teams just lay out their cases with no clash the debate turns into 2 ships crossing a sea at night without ever touching, that makes for a boring debate. The thing I see too often in public forum is the situation above. The more you make your case clash with your opponents the more likely you are to get my ballot. I love crazy unique args but if you like to stick to the basics and do it well keep doing that.

Login to Tabroom

Lindale TFA NIETOC TOC Classic

2021 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List

Judges