Texas Middle School State Tournament
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
LD/PF Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
- Debated on the local, state, and national circuit
- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics
- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.
This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.
A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.
Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.
I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.
Don't like them
Hello! My name is Adhia Agostinho!
I go by she/her.
I am a World School Debater for Alief Early College! (although there was that one time I did LD)
Fun Fact: I'm also in Mock Trial (I mean this isn't needed but I wanted to say it)
I've been doing World School all of freshman year and have competed in all of the case competitions except for case 2.
WHAT I LIKE:
I honestly adore a good rebuttal and great POI's.
Another thing I like is multiple examples on your prepared motion, and I will be sweetly surprised for examples in your unprepared motions.
A balance between rebuttals and substantives.
comparison of both worlds (this is kind of a requirement but I'll put it here for now)
WHAT I EXPECT:
I am a stickler for making sure you engaged with your opponents points, and it might just be me but I don't mind a bit of aggression or attitude with you opponents, just don't overdo it (guilty of that). So make sure you're not resisting all their POI's, and answer at least 2 or else this will just be a series of long speeches bashing each other at the beginning.
One rule I've lived by in both Mock Trial and World School is to respect the judge. It's the one thing that has been drilled into my brain from both clubs, and it's come to be that disrespecting a judge is one of my pet peeves.
Another one is no matter how heated you are with your opponents in the round, always be respectful afterwards. Congratulate each other or shake hands and thank the judge for being there.
I need this to be about the WORLD, pleaser remember America is not the world and this is world schools
Another is a roadmap, I need to have your framework and what you're going to do in this round.
Examples in prepared motions, i need an example of what you're talking about.
One final thing is a call to action, it's one of the basics of world schools and should be in every speech.
SMALL PET PEEVES:
Informing the Judge when someone goes over time or calling someone else's time. the judge is timing and probably so is the other person, the judge will catch it you don't need to tell them.
Another is speaking really fast, now I won't fault you too much since this is something I was working on for my first 2 world school cases (and all of UIL, but seriously we get 4 and 3 minutes for a speech smh) and I still do this sometimes outside of debate but please make sure not to "spread" because often times it's not just your opponent not catching all your points (which you will accuse them of later) but the judge as well.
For UIL next year I want to try Pros, and the profession I'm after is a lawyer. (I'm still debating whether criminal or civil, and whether prosecution or defense). I know this is somewhat unnecessary, I just wanted to say it.
I love world schools with Oyindamola, Jamelle, Essence, Deborah, and Marvellous! LD was eh, but all in all it's one of my favorite clubs (tied with mock trial) and I will never forget the day I won 3rd best speaker for the junior varsity world schools, my team won 4th best team, and I became debate captain all in one night. I also won't forget winning 3rd best team, qualifying for city champs, and city champs itself!
Hi! I am Regina and I am currently a Highschool Varsity LD debater at The Village School.
Email - email@example.com
Arguments I enjoy most when judging (in order from most to least):
2. LARP (policy-like arguments)
Overall, I am going to try to be as tab (neutral) as possible and evaluate based on the arguments presented HOWEVER I am tech > truth. That means that I will vote on how much offense each side has in the round BASED on the framing mechanism won, not how persuasive you are.
Yes, you can go as fast as you want HOWEVER please have clarity and slow down on tags.
- you can use whatever framing you want (K framing, Kant, general morality, etc) HOWEVER please give a mechanism to weigh
- I will decide offense based on framing, so either win your framing or weigh under your opponent's
If you say anything racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc I will drop you - If I notice blatant misgendering I will drop you as well.
Speaker points are decided on strategy in the rebuttal speeches, case construction, and overall clarity of speech
I primarily focus on top level framework and how it pertains throughout the round, why the vc is best to uphold the value, why the value is ultimate of the round, and how the case level contentions feed into this idea. All that was previously said needs to be attacked and targets of constant clash and weighing of rounds. Clear voters are appreciated because they make my job easier and shows which debater comprehends the round the very best and can show it. Thank you for reading!
Klein Collins ‘22
UT Austin ‘26
I did LD for about 7 years, primarily on local circuits. I made three total appearances at TFA State (2 for LD, 1 for Oratory) and a few other higher circuit tournaments (i.e. Longhorn Classic). I was raised extremely traditional and almost always ran trad arguments, and although I will consider all arguments made (exception for theory), that is simply what I am most experienced with. Do with that what you will. If you have any questions regarding a specific case you would like to run either refer below or ask for clarification before the round begins.
Case: Like I said earlier, I was an extremely traditional debater in high school, so case debate is something I am very capable of evaluating. I really enjoy seeing good impact turns and identifying when arguments are non-unique.
Topicality: I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions. I think using topicality, when done effectively, is an excellent way to respond to progressive arguments like K’s that are extremely far-fetched and/or have very little to do with the resolution at hand. With that being said, I need to see at least some sort of debate related to the resolution.
DA: I love disads, but be careful on the link chain for whatever ultimate impact you are trying to get me to see. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. THIS GOES FOR ALL ARGUMENTS.
CP: I think counterplans are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent many Aff cases. However, I will accept Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interpretations that are too abstract/not specific enough (detailed in-text plans solve this issue).
K: I didn’t really run Kritiks as a debater, but I am familiar with some basic ones like Cap Bad and Settler Colonialism. This does not mean I won’t flow the argument. What it does mean is that if you choose to run this type of case you need to assume I know nothing about the theory behind it and explain the argument and its underlying impacts thoroughly: Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative. I also point you to my opinions on topicality that deal with K debate (especially when ran as an Aff).
Update: I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought.
Phil: Philosophy arguments are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and can contextualize the world of their side. I am well-versed with popular writings like Kant, Locke, and Marx (I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me) but as mentioned in my opinion on K’s, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about; explain all claims and implications. Nonetheless, be warned: Empirics > Analytics in *most* cases unless proven otherwise.
Theory: I don’t really like theory. Quite frankly, I think it’s stupid. I encourage you to change my mind though. I WILL NOT VOTE OFF DISCLOSURE THEORY. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I will not automatically down you, but I will be extremely disappointed (speaker points will probably reflect this). As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity, I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the “loop” and/or involved with collective wikis.
If I had to pref:
Notice: this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with arguments. I will do my absolute best to not allow my own biases regarding debate styles to impact the RFD. I urge all competitors to debate how they want to, and I will adapt as I see fit.
Include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. I'm only going to flow what is said in round, but if there is discrepancy regarding information presented I definitely want the chance to view it myself.
Spreading: I don't like spreading, but I’m perfectly fine with speed. I will yell “clear” at least once if I think you are speaking too fast, but afterwards I will stop flowing if I can’t understand what you are saying.
FW: I expect to see some form of clash regarding opposing frameworks (seeing as though that kind of is the point of LD). Moreover, it is imperative that throughout the round you are referencing which FW I ought to be evaluating the debate under. If I am simply left to judge competing evidence alone with no standard to compare such evidence to that makes it extremely difficult for me to produce a decision.
IMPACT WEIGHTING IS CRITICAL
Hello! I'm Amanda Cruser and, to be honest, I'm incredibly new at judging (you can look at my history, lol). I know the basics of LD & PF debate, but I never did debate in HS/College. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me anytime!
- Please be a good person, mature, and use your common sense. (No "racism good" impact turns, etc.)
- Note: Debate is about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you're unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument (claim, warrant, impact), it likely won't factor into my decision.
- Case sharing is fine, as long as your opponent(s) is/are okay with it. (I'll provide an email in-round if needed)
- Running CP's/plans (in LD, not so much PF) are fine, as long as you clearly map everything out & it's still topical/rational. Also, if it's a very small change from the resolution in order to "cheat the system", it won't take much on theory for me to reject the CP.
- Signposting is preferred, as it helps me flow.
- I usually flow cross-ex/crossfire.
- Remember impact calc/voters, it's a very easy way to get me to vote for you if you can prove you outweigh (& why your fw outweighs too!)
- You can talk fast, but not to the level of spreading.
- If I can't understand you (especially if I don't have your case), I can't flow you. Thus, it would be very difficult to win the round. I will also dock speaker points for spreading. Again, talking fast is okay, but not policy-level auctioneer-like spreading.
- I'll also dock speaks if you're just a rude person in general. Debate is meant to be a safe space to express our ideas, and you should never be obnoxious to someone who had the courage to do this in middle school/high school! (I was definitely not doing this in ms/hs!)
- Clearly state your framework & why yours is better. Make sure to uphold it throughout the round & tie it back to your case/arguments.
- If your framework is obscure (a branch of deontology or something) make sure to explain it. If it's general (like util) or self-explanatory it doesn't have to be explained as much.
- Mostly the same as LD framework, though it's not as important to me in PF.
Mostly the same as MS but more about perms, theory, and Ks
- "Perm do both" isn't a complete argument. Explain how, why, etc.
- I default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater. All of this is debatable, however.
- Order of evaluation: Theory, K (topical!), phil, LARP
- TOPICAL K's are fine, though I don't fully understand the intricacies of them so (again) you need to clearly map it out. I really don't like non-topical Ks because I believe they subtract from the round, so that's an easy win on theory for me.
- If you're going to run phil, I need a clear explanation of what the author believes and how it relates to the round before I can vote on it.
Junior at Greenhill School.
I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why there is some opportunity cost to that change.
Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter.
1 - Most enjoy policy debates with quality research. These are my favorite types of debates.
2 - Really enjoy topicality. I think there is almost always a better violation than Nebel. Precision is still probably good.
3 - I like some kritik debates - my caveat here is that I like debate. I like to think I like things that are good.
4 - When done well, theory debates are fun. I tend to think DTA is persuasive against most CP theory (except condo...) but it is up to the debaters to resolve this.
5 - I am least interested in judging arguments that rely on your opponent missing a barely-warranted argument or are attacks towards your opponent's character or background. Debate is about argumentative flexibility, not individual people. Please clash and weigh.
6 - LD philosophy debate, when substantive, is very engaging. Under EM or EC, please be sure to compare offense.
7 - Clash debates are almost always interesting. I have been on both sides and would be happy to judge these.
8 - Disclosure is good, but I'm more convinced debaters should make a good effort to allow for engagement in round that meet an arbitrary threshold of disclosure (e.g. open source v full text, etc)
9 - Have fun! I will be judging first year so please enjoy yourself and I will try to adapt to the debate you want to have.
10 - Ten is a nice number, didn't want to leave it at 9.
I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.
My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.
Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.
It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.
It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.
Hi! To give some background, I'm a college student with previous HS debate experience. During High School, I competed in Varsity PF and qualified for TFA State. I will be flowing and am comfortable with turns, drops, impacts, weighing, extending, etc
While I do have debate experience, it's been a couple of years and I won't be updated on the current resolution. (just something to keep in mind). This is how I judge the round: ultimately, it comes down to weighing each side's impacts during Final Focus. Anything you want me to consider in FF must have been properly extended in summary.
Aside from my paradigms- Remember to have fun! I know how nerve-wracking it can be, but don't be too stressed :)
I debated competitively in the mid-1990s, including participating in nationals my senior year. My preference is for you to speak at a normal rate and persuade me with logic and data. I will flow all of each side's arguments and will take into consideration the magnitude of each point when determining the winner.
I am a flow judge, but I am "truth over tech," as the phrase seems to be.
I did seven years of middle and high school debate, graduating HS in 2014. As such, I do flow but I dislike spreading and tactics that come from policy. So, if you make an extinction/nuclear war argument or something like it, you'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to buy it, even if your opponents don't spend a huge amount of time on it.
As I said, I do flow, but I also appreciate weighing and detailed explanations of why one argument or piece of evidence preempts our outweighs another. That style of argumentation matters much more to me than simply extending evidence or an argument.
I will be expecting clear articulation and logical presentation. While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates. As for rate of spread, unless your diction is crisp, keep rate to a 3 on the spread scale.
If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them. Clear signposts within your presentation are also helpful. I will be expecting clear and precise sponsorship speeches and logical class refutation.
Village High School 23'
Email: jay.natarajan1[at]gmail[dot]com - Put me on the chain if possible.
Hey, I'm Jay and I'm a current junior at Village High School. I've competed for a bit in LD and as a result, don't have any particular qualms with any arguments. However, I'll note the fact that arguments should have at the very minimum a general claim-warrant-impact structure for me to vote off of them.
Prefs Shortcut (in how comfortable I am judging them):
LARP/Trad - 1
Theory/T - 1/2
K/Phil - 2/3
Tricks - 4
- I will try to be as neutral as possible, tech > truth (offense vs. persuasiveness)
- Feel free to go as fast as you want, but make sure to slow down on tags and be relatively clear
- Speaks will be based on overall round strategy & start at a 28 and go up/down from there.
- Any arguments that are morally repugnant should not be run at all - I will drop you if you do.
- If you have any questions before the round - feel free to ask!
In WSD I will judge based off:
- The flow. Refute their arguments and extend and rebuild your own and you should be fine. This is the main thing I will be voting on.
-Style is somewhat important but will NOT win you the round. Please be clear when you are speaking so I can pick up every argument and refutation.
- Substance. Make sure your arguments are true and provide enough reasoning that convinces me that you are valid.
Weighing and really fleshing out why you are right or why you have won the debate is super important. Love me a mix of practical and principled arguments. Organization is good too (signposting, roadmaps, etc) Please be respectful and a little humor is encouraged :)
I am also open to giving yall more critique and help, just ask after your round.
Will judge based off:
- How well your impacts are fleshed out (weighing). Make it clear on why your arguments win.
- How strategic your cross examination is and how well you can answer to your opponents question.
- Style is minimally important. Just please be concise so that I can understand what you are saying. If I can't understand, then I cant vote on your case.
Speech is pretty subjective so I will vote based off of:
-How well your piece flows together
-differentiation between characters and how well you can create that character.
* My main event is WSD so during any other event, tell me anything I should know as a judge that is specific to your type of debate. For example, if your opponent has violated some type of rule or what type of grounds should be valued more in your event.
I debated 4 years for Elkins High School in LD and I competed in extemporaneous speaking as well during my time there.
On speed make sure you're clear but you can go as fast as you want. I will say clear once and then I will stop flowing because if I can't understand your argument then why should I weigh it? The event is just as much speech as it is debate
I judge speaks based on three things: Tone, Interest(I.e fluctuation and articulation style), and Perceptual dominace
Don't abuse the 2NR or 2AR. Don't abuse 2NR having a bunch of time to bring up tons of new arguments. Don't abuse the 2AR by making new arguments that the neg cannot respond to.
I hold you to whatever you say in CX and I do not allow for any backtracking. That said don't be mean/constantly cut people off during CX, because that is not advantageous. It's just rude. One Thank you is enough or maybe two and if you as the opponent continue to talk over them after they try and stop you NICELY I will give you low speaks. So just be cordial, it's no that hard, and I'm not scrutinizing this too hard, but don't be blatantly rude.
Director of Debate – Greenhill School
Coach USA Debate Team
Owner Global Debate Symposium - https://www.gdsdebate.com/
Updated – April 2022
Please put me on the email chain – email@example.com
Contact me with questions.
Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene. I WILL do my best to be an objective evaluator of your arguments but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is just not true (nor do it is true for anyone).
I have coached National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these format’s week in and week out.
General thoughts on how I decide debates:
1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.
2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.
3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.
4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.
5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.
6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.
7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students.
8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.
9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparison between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.
10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.
I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.
A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:
Topicality vs Conventional Affs:
Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters that can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support that why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.
Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:
First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).
Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested. The deference for going for topicality/FW versus “k affs’ can be strategic and the best option. Many times, the reality is that many teams not researching to contest the foundational premises of the other side.
Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.
Counterplans and Disads:
Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise to respond to these arguments.
Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.
I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.
Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off case arguments
Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.
I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.
I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.
I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.
Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).
It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.
Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.
Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
Yes. Countless times.
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?
World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POI’s) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)
I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.
The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)
Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.
World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?
World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.
How do you resolve model quibbles?
Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.
I'm a junior in HS and have debated for two years now on multiple circuits. I've done both PF and LD.
Speaking-- I'm fine with any speed and spreading but please share cases if you're spreading either in an email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org) or speech drop the case.
Tech- I'm fine with tech but if your theory shells are clearly abusive then I will automatically down you.
Argumentation- All arguments are acceptable as long as the links are clear and you provide impact weighing. Always try and give voters/weighing in the last speech and I will not extend any arguments on my own so extend throughout.
AUTOMATIC L W/ 20 SPEAKS IF:
- you're overly aggressive (including any disrespectful language and/or yelling unreasonably at opponents)
- you don't include appropriate content warnings for sensitive topics
- misuse of prep/evidence
Just try and remember that there is a distinction between debating and arguing.
Clear Speech (enunciate if speaking fast)
Tech is fine
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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