The End of Summer Speech and Debate Spectacular
2022 — Zoom, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.
Email:
brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!
Worlds:
I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.
PF:
Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.
LD/CX:
Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.
Speech:
I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.
I have been coaching speech and debate since 1999, first in south Florida and now in central Florida.
LD: I am not a fan of Kritiks. In most respected academic realms, students are not rewarded for giving an off-topic response to a prompt. I have found that most Kritiks fall under the "off-topic response" descriptor, thus I do not take them seriously as a response to the resolution (or, as I see it, the prompt). Further, I find these types of arguments counter to the essence of the debate activity, excluding new and small programs and creating an exclusive sub-group (clique, if you will) within the debate community.
So in that respect, I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge than a progressive one. I want to hear a clear debate about the values that are in conflict in the resolution. Your cases should be comprised of arguments that are based in credible, academic sources; they should be built on clear logic, creative and innovative ideas; and they should actively and directly clash with your opponent's arguments. Debaters who can present a strong case with great logic and evidence, effective refutation of their opponent's case, and ultimately prove their Value/Value Criterion will win. If both debaters are equal on contentions and rebuttals, I will decide the round on which value holds up. So, make sure everything you argue ties back to your V and VC.
Special Note about progressive LD: While I do not like this style, I will (of course) judge you on your performance in the round, whatever shape each particular round takes. I will not judge anyone solely based on style/type of case. But let me elaborate a bit on why I find progressive style LD so problematic.
First, the speed is antithetical to real communication. Ideas, especially complex, nuanced, layered ideas (the likes of which one would hope to encounter in LD) require momentary breaths, pauses to let them settle. While sharing cases can help, it does not solve the issue fully. Also, the prevalence of JARGON in progressive debate is a distraction from the arguments in the round. Do your best to limit the use of jargon.
My next concern is the facile, reductive treatment given to the philosophical and academic theories often used by students. While I applaud your efforts to engage with these complex, rich, important ideas and texts, debaters are too often punching above their weight. That is understandable. Scholars spend their entire careers unpacking these theories. It is the very rare teenager who can engage with them without reducing them to tag lines and washed-out, oversimplified shadows of the textured ideas they actually are. IF you truly understand the ideas you are using (and you’re not just parroting something written by your team/coaches/camps), then go for it.
Finally, as the coach of a burgeoning team at a Title 1 school, I am very concerned about the fairness of this type of debate for programs like mine. Much has been written about this issue, so I will not belabor the point.
PF: The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round. I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during most of the round, but I am still looking for all of the hallmarks of good communication: eye contact/hand gestures/facial expressions/voice modulation. Although I won't decide a round based on a single dropped argument, I will consider that as part of my decision. The best rebuttals are those who can systematically go down the flow and address most arguments. Strong contentions will include important impacts. Strong cases will provide some sort of framework. A good final focus will include impact weighing and voters.
Again, I am not a fan of the changes occurring in PF. Jargon (lots and lots of it) has crept in, and we have left the “public” in Public Forum far behind. (Sigh).
Final note: I value clarity over speed, and I consider civility to be of paramount importance in all rounds. Assertiveness does not require aggression. Assertiveness is applauded; aggression will be penalized.
I graduated 2022. Debated four years in LD, two in congress, and did speech categories in forensics for all four years. Add me to the email chain ihoffm2003@gmail.com.
General notes: Run whatever you want as long as it's not offensive. If there is anything that might be considered triggering please give a warning. Be respectful, be passionate, and have fun. If you have any questions about anything, please don't hesitate to reach out.
LD (or PF or Policy) : This is by far the category I'm most comfortable with. I've competed in the circuit a bit so I'm good with speed and progressive arguments(NO TRICKS) but that doesn't mean I hate lay debate. Tech over truth. Framework comes first!!! Low key, I think value debates are dumb. I care a lot more about the value criterion. Make a story with clear impacts and voters. Tell me why I'm voting for you. I won't connect your dots. Love me a good power tag but please make sure that your card actually says something kinda relevant to the tag. It's not enough to say "the debater dropped x contention so flow my initial response through." Tell me what that initial response was again. Sign post like your life depends on it. It makes everyone's life easier.
Congress: I've competed in circuit so you can rest assured I'm not another parent judge. This is a DEBATE category. Get aggressive during cx! Please for the love of god interact with other representatives with your speech. Impacting good. Evidence good. If you want more specifics look at my speech paradigm.
Speech categories: Although this might not be interp, feel free to get a little theatrical. I weigh content like 1/2 of what I do your delivery(do what you want with this, obviously it doesn't apply to radio). Creative hooks/analogies will always make me happy but it has to make sense. If you're not super confident with your content, pretend like you are.
Current High School Debater. Been debating for three years, this season will be my fourth. Been involved with speech and debate for 6 years. Competed at NCFL nats '21, '22, '23 qualed for NSDA nats in '22 and '23 in LD.
for email chain use: shoffm18@icloud.com
Short Version
LD: run prog but don't run T, tricks, or non topical stuff, spread only if you're clear ab it
PF/Policy: Treat me as a parent judge who knows impact weighing
Long Version
Debate
FOR ALL DEBATERS: tech > truth
LD- LD is what I do so I'm pretty comfy of you running anything.
If you don't have strong links to your impacts or args in general I will not vote for you.
Run progressive if you want to, I'm usually chill with people running them if you run them well. I am not a fan of tricks it usually is not a fun debate to watch, be in, or judge so I will honestly drop you if you try to run it; they're not worth it and I will dock points.
If you spread make sure you're clear
PF and Policy- I haven't done Pf or Policy, I only know the basics. I've only judged one PF round in my entire life and I haven't judged policy at all. I am literally cringing while writing this out but basically treat me as a parent judge
Congress- I have done congress numerous times, please keep your speeches organized and WEIGH IMPACTS!!! I love SUPER aggressive questioning blocks if it's direct- you will definitely get placed higher or if not placed higher, have higher speaks
I will always put the PO pretty high if they are productive, organized, and keep the session running smoothly.
Y'ALL, I AM ALWAYS READY UNLESS I TELL YOU DIFFERENT!! I absolutely hate when people want me to give them weird hand motions (butterflies, hearts, etc) it's so weird and unnecessary like dude be so fr.
This is DEBATE CATEGORY I don't want an organized socratic seminar.
Progressive Args
T/Theory- Tbh I don't like theory, unless there's a true violation (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc). They never persuade my decision at all and they never lead to anything important. Don't run disclosure theory if you're from a big school against someone from a little school. As someone from a little school, it's just a cheap way to win a round. If you are a good debater, you should be able to beat any case- regardless if you have their case beforehand. If you continue to run it, I will drop you.
K/Kritiks and K affs- I like them when they are ran well. As the judge, I have to assume I know nothing about the topic beforehand. If you go into the K like I have background info, the links are usually pretty weak and as the judge I have to put in more work into making those connections. Again, I'm fine with them u just have to run them well.
CP/Counter Plans and Plantexts: Go right ahead I usually have no issue with them, you need to just have a solid DA or provide a reasoning and link for the CP or plantext to exist.
Phil- If you are the 5% that runs phil well, go right ahead. For the other 95%, I don't like phil. Like yes it makes sense, but the majority who uses it assume that everyone knows what that phil is talking about and not everyone does.
Speech:
To be completely honest w you I have no clue to put for this. I have done speech throughout my entire high school career. I do focus a lot on the structure of your speech/performance but other than that I will just give feedback on mannerisms.
For Everyone:
I am always ready unless I tell you different
It's insanely hard for me to give you perfect scores for speaker points unless your speech or speeches were the definition of perfection. For debate, assume I'll score you somewhere in between 26.5 through 29.5 and speech I'll probably give you a 4 or a 5.
It's insane that I have to be writing this but I will NOT allow any belittling or prejudice in ANY round or in ANY form (homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.).
If I find out about any actions that exclude members (specifically students from little schools) from the pool before the tournament starts, or if I witness the effects on them, I will report you to tab for an equity violation. Coming from a small school, it's insanely classist and encourages these barriers that this activity is trying to break down. Don't deny that this happens (we all know it happens and it's super obvious in rounds).
As members of an activity that is supposed to give an equal voice to all, upholding these behaviors that have been happening for years and years is insanely rude and disappointing. Hold each other accountable.
Overall, have fun (this is supposed to be a fun activity) and I'm excited to judge you!
Hey! I'm a student here writing this on behalf of my dad, who is acting as a parent judge. To provide some background, he is a business systems analyst/IT worker with a bachelor's degree in geology and a master's degree in business and computer science. Consider him a lay judge, so please don't do anything too fancy in-round, and lay off on jargon. He is very intelligent and regularly keeps up with the news and politics, so please don't try to provide any incorrect information in your favor. He's not too familiar with speech times, so please don't ask for time signals, and, like with any judge out there, please make sure to do impact calc in final speeches during debate rounds. When you enter your rounds, please let him know who is who before the round begins.
No spreading: you cannot win if he is judging and you are spreading. Automatic loss.
Thank you and good luck in your rounds!
Sasha Kreinik Paradigm
Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com
I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.
I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.
LD/CX:
Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.
LD:
Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.
All:
One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.
I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.
In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.
Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.
Emial Chain: lihungpaneric0827@gmail.com
General Info:
I was a fairly mediocre circuit debater. I did qualify for TFA in my junior year and broke a couple of times at circuit tournaments (UT, UH, etc).
Paradigm:
I'll judge everything you say in the round with very few exceptions. I don't care what you read... even if it is morally repugnant. I think you should be able to run anything you like-- even if it is extinction good. I will presume everything you said to be true as long as it falls to a reasonable margin. (If you claim climate change is not true, at least have a card that says so)
Disclosure theory is fine, just don't run it on novices.
I want to say "Don't be a jerk", but at this point, I don't care. If it is funny, so be it. Just be careful with your speak.
Email: lihungpaneric0827@gmail.com; Yes speech doc
Trad 1 (1 not because I'm really good at it, but because I feel like I'm not too qualified to judge a high-level circuit round)
Phil 2 (if it is util vs Kant, will boast speak)
LARP 2 or 3 depends on how dense they are
Tricks 2 (please don't be too difficult to understand, again, I'm stupid)
Theory/Topicality 4
K 5
Speed:
I have difficulty listening to spreading that goes too fast (anything above 350 wpm). I'll yell "loud" or "clear" if necessary. Pause after reading the taglines, it helps a lot. I flow on paper & I'm pretty bad at flowing so please keep that in mind (for me and for you).
I understand how difficult spreading is.... as someone whose first language is not English I feel it. Therefore I don't normally punish a debater on clarity unless it is too far. IE, if you ignored "loud" or "clear".
Theory:
Friv theory has to be contextualized, the threshold of response would be low, but I will vote for it.
If you go technical please explain them well. If they are innovative and understandable (preferably with in-round abuse), there will be high speak.
Not a fan of RVI but I do recognize that it could be justified under some limited circumstances, such as friv theory.
To be honest I'm not the best theory debater and I do not personally like theory; after all I think substances are the only link to education
Don't exempt theory shell if possible.
Tricks:
- A prior is ok. But it is... fairly stupid. If you win on it I'll -0.2 speak. (if you did not go for it then no impact)
- If you are reading something that is somewhat abusive (like Neg should not have prep time or 1AR restart), it is fine. But the response threshold would be really low. No impact on speak
- Long underview is ok... I think it is justified, but not too educational. No impact on speak.
LARP:
- Not too familiar with CPs, but please go for them. Be creative, but don't be too creative. (Consult and Delay CP though... let's say my threshold will be slightly different)(PICs are fine as long as they are reasonably justified to be different from the plan post-fiat, i.e. no word PICs.)
- If there's something unconventional then explain them.
- Please weigh and collapse
- Impact turn is your best friend.
- If you don't respond to calc indict you lose :) (threshold is low, of course)
- Interesting impact turns like sparks and wipeouts will be evaluated because why not? *my threshold will be slightly higher though.
Phil:
- My favorite...
- Philosophy is open to interpretation. I don't care what Kant or Hobbes actually said. I only judge what you said and what I could understand.
- I feel like they are underappreciated... technically in so far as you win the fw debate, it is almost always an auto W absent pre-fiat or theoretical impacts.
- If you're reading something other than Kant or Hobbes, explain them well for the sake of your opponent.
- Moral skepticism and determinism are acceptable.
Kritik:
- I'm really really really sorry. But I have difficulty understanding K. I'm just stupid and I was depressed by it. If you go for it please explain them well.
- I personally put K at the same layer as Phil and Util FW... Mostly because I don't see why they shouldn't. K being a higher layer is dependent on you winning your thesis and your ROB, but in that case, you will win the debate anyway. I don't see how K is an automatic higher layer.
- Please make the alt has some kind of solvency, whether discursive or physical. The problem is many debaters do not even know what the alt is doing... and it is... not good.
- Prepare a case list of Aff that fits your K which your opponent can read. If you fail to do so when your opponent asks for them in CX, you lose. K debate is meaningless if it is impossible for the aff to not violate the thesis.
- I'll take the "ROB is arbitrary" kind of argument if you do not respond to them.
- Identity K should probably be read by someone from that group. Reading Yellow Submarine or Peril or something like that against Asian debaters when you are not reading is beyond my understanding. It is true now that set col., queerpess, disability-pess, etc. are now widely ran by debaters who do no belong to that group, and I understand stand. My threshold is whether you rob the agency of that group. For example, running Afropess as a white person. I understand the brightline is extremely unclear, so I'll try not to intervene. But the problem is... I don't know how.
- If I don't understand a K, I can't vote on it. Which means you should assume I know nothing. I know it is somewhat biased, but forgive my ignorance. Strike if you must.
Defaults.
Epistemic confidence > Epistemic modesty
Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds
Argumentation > Persuasion (the latter may or may not affect the speaker's point, depending on whether it affects the clarity of the argument, probably only +-0.5 max)
Theory > Kritik/Framework (Util & Phil) > Contention
Presumption negate and permissibility affirms
Speaker Point
The mode is 28.7, probably won't go below 28.3 unless there's a good reason. +-0.2 if you are slightly better or worse than average. Never go down below 27.5 no matter how bad you did technical-wise. Will give a 25 in some cases. Will give 29+ occasionally. Only 30 if the round is like WOW, so like... not likely.
For Traditional Debater (If you have no idea what everything above is, you probably are):
Just do your best. I will use your skill of persuasion to determine your speaker's points. Because I think that's what traditional debate is: argumentation + persuasion.
For Circuit Debater:
Please don't run theory or Kritik or spread like crazy if you know that your opponent is a novice, that's just...bad.
If your opponent is a varsity though, do not hold back and go for everything. Hard debate = good debate.
If you have any questions, email me, and have fun. Nothing cheer me up better than a good debate.
Everyone’s paradigm is too long and this one is also too long sorry abt that yall
-
•Vista Ridge ‘23 + TXST ‘27
-Congress 4 years, PF 3 years, oratory 3 years, extemp 2 years and did LD a handful of times. In total accumulated 8 TFA State quals and 9 TOC bids throughout these events. ETOC quarterfinalist and national semifinalist in congress.
Ask me about joining the TXST speech and debate team :)
-
PF / LD
See Jonathan Daugherty‘s paradigm it sums up how I vote in a round perfectly.
Only difference is I’ll vote off theory or a K (topical or not) if it’s well-warranted. Everything else applies. I would veer on the side of the less spreading the better. This is your game, remember this is supposed to be fun!
-
WSD:
Please weigh. If you don’t weigh I have to intervene. I do not want to intervene. Simplify the round and I will be happy to vote for whatever the path of least resistance to the ballot is.
-
Congress:
Will rank someone who gave a mediocre speech but heavily participated in chamber higher than someone who gave one amazing speech but then didn’t participate in chamber. Congress is not just about speeches, it's about how you present yourself.
-
Speech :
I don’t think this needs a paradigm but this is what I mainly judge so if you’re curious just do your event as you would normally.
-
email - smcstabs@gmail.com
reach out if you have questions
-
sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, I always leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots in word.
I am an assistant Speech and Debate coach, but mostly work with Speech events. I know the basics of Debate events, but I am not a pro, so I prefer when debaters speak at slower speed rather than spread.
I'm ok with either progressive or traditional style debate (I'm ok with running K's for the most part)
The most important things are to be kind and have fun :)