PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOUR EVENT IN FULL BEFORE THE ROUND. I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO EVALUATE YOU SO I'M NOT REPEATING WHAT'S SAID HERE IN MY BALLOTS.

A bit about myself:

I did debate all four years of high school on the TFA, TOC, NSDA, and UIL circuits. My experience is primarily in Congress and IX, but I also competed in PF for a couple years. I graduated from high school in 2021 and I'm currently a double-major in Government and Sustainability Studies conducting research on politics and policy, so you can count on me to a) be familiarized with what you're doing and b) have at least a general knowledge of the topics you're arguing.

***DISCLAIMER: My paradigm may list some of my personal preferences on what I think makes for a good round, but you reserve every right to play to your strengths. Again, these are strong preferences; not end-all-be-all rules on how I'll vote. Don't try to over-adjust for the sake of winning me over!

FOR ALL EVENTS:

-Don't be a bad human being. At the end of the day, you need to be mature enough to detach your emotions from your logic; that means no eye-rolling, shouting matches, or derogatory comments. I will not tolerate any behavior which is demeaning or hurtful to another person andI will mark you downif you do so. If you felt uncomfortable with anything that was said to you during the round, please inform me so that I can report it to those running the tournament.

-If someone has preferred pronouns, respect them. It's not hard to ask someone before the round how they wish to be addressed, whether it's based on their gender identity, pronunciation of a name, what name they prefer, etc..

-Content warnings are more important than you think for heavier topics. The last thing you want is a judge's rationale being blindsided by a subject that sets them off

-I value empirical and quantitative evidence over all else. If you make an argument but can't back it up with numbers/past examples, then it's a low-quality argument. If you're using a certain political or economic theory, show me ways that those processes have played out in the past

-If your opponent is not on the same level as you and needs explanation on a term or concept, don't be pretentious and just help them out with a quick definition/explanation. Not everyone knows what the intricacies of ecofascism or post-structuralist theory are. Exercise basic courtesy.

-If there's a dispute over facts or your evidence is sketchy, I'll ask to see it after the round. If you're convinced that your opponent is using fake/misconstrued evidence, bring it up after the round and I'll give it a look. You should have all your cards available in the event of a dispute.

-One common issue I see is when someone will just make an unwarranted claim and think that it's enough to address their opponent's argument. I don't equate mere statements to arguments.

-IF YOU DON'T IMPACT I DROP THE ARGUMENT (unless I have the misfortune of judging a BQD round where impacts don't exist lol).

EVENT-SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Congress:

-I know you're supposed to pretend like you're all congresspeople, but don't personally attack your opponents as if they are.

-I value argument quality over speaking style, but both are very important. I'll mostly use speaking style as a metric to choose between equal argumentative performances; however, if it feels like you're giving me a debate case and not a speech then I'll rank you down. You're not meant to regurgitate information like a robot.

-DO NOT READ YOUR SPEECH. I promise you'll sound better and keep me more engaged when you make eye contact and naturally variegate your choice of language. I know many of you learned how to debate over Zoom and weren't held accountable for reading from your screen, but you need to drop the habit ASAP.

-Don't try to give as many speeches as possible just for the sake of doing so. You could very well earn the 1 from me if you only give a single, solid speech. However, if everyone in the round gives 3 speeches, for example, I expect you to give at least 2.

-Use credible, relatively recent sources. Some issues are time sensitive and render sources from anything over a year ago as useless.

-I will rank you down if you rehash. Give me new arguments after the constructive speeches and do weighing toward the end of the cycle.

-Yelling, especially in direct questioning, will get you nothing.

-If your opponent is giving a speech and you're aggressively nodding or shaking your head, acting confused, or fist-pumping, you're literally

-Don't be afraid to PO. I will still rank you high if you run a fair and fast chamber with little resistance from the room, but you BETTER be on top of things

-Don't try to force a funny/witty intro on something serious. Joking about issues of life or death often won't make you look like a comedian, but instead someone who's very unprofessional.

-KEEP EVERYTHING ON TOPIC AND RELEVANT TO THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION. Reference the legislation frequently so I know which sections you're addressing.

PF/LD:

-Make sure to establish your definitions, standards, VCs, etc at the beginning of your case. If you don't, I'll just adopt your opponent's. If neither of you establish standards, that makes my job more difficult.This is incredibly important when the topic is a vague one: it's your burden as a debater to provide me specifics on what the plan would look like when enacted.

-I'd prefer if you treat me like a traditional judge in LD, but I'm semi-flexible. I don't really like Ks, T, etc., but I understand that they can be very useful to winning a round; use those at your own discretion. Definitely don't run those in PF though.

-I'm tech over truth unless you say something that's blatantly bending reality (ex. the sky is green). If your opponent starts going on an Alex Jones-esque rant, it's your responsibility to call them out on it. If they provide a link chain for it and you do nothing to pick it apart, then that's on you.

-If you incoherently spread, I won't flow your arguments. I'm fine with speed, but only up until the point where all your words amalgamate into a blob and everything just becomes noise. I'm not going to attempt to write down what I think you're saying (or at least trying to say).

-Please signpost/roadmap, ESPECIALLY in LD if you're running Ks and the like. Otherwise I won't consider anything if a) you don't tell me to flow, or b) you don't tell me where to flow it. A simple "I'm going their case, our case" will suffice before you start.Do not overlook signposting; do it as much as possible, even if it's from argument to argument. I need to know where to write my flows so I can accurately judge y'all in the end

-Please don't run identity arguments unless it's clearly related to the topic and I can impact off of it. However, I generally don't favor these sorts of arguments because they often can lead to ignoring the topic at hand.

-I drop anything you don't extend.

Extemp/Other Speech or Interp

-Though Extemp is a speech event, I still focus on your argumentation. Don't waste 2 minutes repeating the same thing in different ways; give me sub-points and sources to bolster the content of what you're saying. You'll inherently sound more convincing this way

-SIGNPOST AS YOU GO

-Providing context for your topic question in Extemp is not just something you should address in your intro; you should do it throughout your speech, especially for international or niche topics

-Any sources you bring up in your speech should have a date tied to them. If you're directly citing an individual, include the platform through which you sourced the quote (Ex. "President Biden told Reuters in an interview on January 26th this year...")

-For Info and Oratory, your how you speak is naturally more important than other events, but the content still plays a large role in how I evaluate you

-For Interp, my evaluation is 100% about your passion and ability to communicate a desired emotion or idea. Don't be afraid of feeling weird or awkward.

-Please don't go slo-mo just to take up time. That's a big pet peeve.

-All speech competitors should focus on fluency, syntax, pacing, and conciseness. A good speech will maintain the same cadence throughout its entirety.

Who Am I?

All Saints Episcopal School (2017-2021)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2021-Present)

I did Congressional Debate for 4 years at All Saints and competed on the UIL, TFA, and national level throughout. Also, I competed in extemp for 4 years in both the domestic and international side while also dabbling a bit in the other forms of debate as well (PF, Worlds, LD).

Paradigm (I think I covered mostly everything in here but if you have any other questions feel free to ask before round)

General

- Be respectful

- Any sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. remarks and/or arguments = drop

- Respect preferred pronouns as well

- Be respectful to people who aren't on the same level as you

- I'll time you but i'll go with whatever time y'all agree with

Congress

- As an overall note, make the round compelling

- Also, take this paradigm into account but at the same time don't try to overadjust to it (in other words, debate to your strengths which will better reflect your ranks)

- CLASH please

- I value argumentation over presentation but make yourself somewhat presentable too

- Intros of any kind are always appreciated

- Also I'm a genuine believer in the fact that the first speech in the round, whether it's an author or just a sponsor, should to some degree explain the specifics of the bill instead of pure argumentation (obviously, the burden of this is heavier for authors but I still expect to see references to the bill for a sponsor)

- Crystallization speeches are always nice

- Rehash sucks i'd rather you move on and prep the next bill if you don't have anything unique to add to a debate

- I PO'd a ton in my career so I'll probably be willing to rank POs higher but at the same time notice mistakes by PO more frequently, but in general, I'll always encourage POing, just don't ruin the round.

- ONLINE ONLY: Biggest pet peeve I have is seeing debaters visibly read out a speech word for word. It's really obvious and please don't.

LD

- Traditional, but i'll vote on anything if you can justify your argument

- Also I've done 0 research for kritiks, t shells, theory in general, etc. so use those arguments at your own discretion

- I can handle decent speed, but don't spread; i'll yell clear once before i stop flowing

- Tech over truth, I don't care what you run as long as you back it up with literature, but i will call out sus cards and lying about evidence/making up evidence = 25 speaker points

- Anything not extended throughout the entire rd will not be considered

- Signpost pls cuz i'm not flowing if i don't know where to flow

PF

- Mostly same as LD

- Mostly in favor of the rise of progressive arguments within the event, but once again, consider me traditional, so run these args at your own discretion

Extemp

- 60/40 split in terms of the value of presentation vs. content

- ONLINE ONLY: Since presentation is easier on the online format, the split of value between presentation to content is probably closer to 40/60

- Having a good intro is probably the easiest way to put yourself ahead

- Quality>Quantity in terms of sources and the information they provide

- With that said, I do expect to hear at least 5 sources per speech

- Analysis of sources and the information provided (imo) are more important than the actual sources so make sure you really get that through

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.

Paradigm for Alexander Wick

I am Computer Science student at Texas Christian University, and currently compete in both speech and debate events for TCU. I competed for Tyler Lee HS and have extensive high school policy/congressional debate experience. I currently serve collegiate competitors as a representative on Pi Kappa Delta’s National Council. I am also the Head Speech and Debate Instructor for the Fort Worth Country Day School. I’ll list the most important aspects of my judging paradigm here, but feel free to ask clarifying questions or if there is anything else you’d like to know before your round.

Policy Debate

Arguments

I will judge and consider every argument presented in the debate, provided that the argument is presented seriously and fairly and is extended throughout the round. I will not ‘shadow-extend’ arguments for you.

For negative policy teams, if you choose to run your arguments conditionally, you will need to explain to me why it is necessary to do so. Additionally, while I will vote on Ks, make sure you know how to run them well.

I will consider any theory argument, including RVIs, but you should clearly explain why you are running them and why it is needed in that particular round. Make sure you're running those arguments with proper theory shells. Don’t just run theory to waste your opponents time.

Evidence

I prefer quality over quantity. On all sides, ensure that you are understanding your evidence and not just reading- debaters should be able to intelligently discuss their arguments during questioning.

Congress

Please ensure that you are respectful to your fellow competitors inside and outside the round. For POs, make sure that you are both following parliamentary procedure and the rules of the tournament. For example, if the tournament is operating under TFA rules, ensure that you are following the TFA's guidelines on Congressional Debate.

I know that timing Congress speeches is tricky- but under no circumstance should you exceed 3:10. That 10 seconds is a grace period- aim your speech to 3:00 and end quickly if you pass that mark.

For all Events

Do not misinterpret or make up evidence. I do verify evidence and sources used, especially if there is cause to do so.

These are communication events. Make sure you are communicating to your judges- don't just read to us. That being said, I rarely ask to be included on email chains. I should not have to read your evidence to understand your arguments.

Best if luck to you and your team during the tournament!