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.
I have a very high threshold for voting on these.
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 freshmen at Columbia University. I debated LD in High school, qualifying for the TOC in my Junior Year. I was primarily a K debater, reading Set Col and Queerpess although I did enjoy the general LARP debate.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer speech drop - please set it up before the round starts and have your documents ready to go.
For spreading - If I have to say clear more than twice, I am dropping your speaks
Arguments I enjoy most when judging (in order from most to least):
- Tricks - strike me, won’t vote on it
tech > truth as LONG AS YOU HAVE WARRANTS
sept/oct 23 update - I am not super familiar with the topic so please don’t abbreviate + clearly articulate link to impact for LARP debates
IF YOU ARE READING KANT in a kant vs util debate - please explain the arguments to me like I am 5, I want to vote for you but if I dont understand it I cannot vote on it
If you are in any way racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc in round I WILL drop you with the lowest speaks I can give you.
Disclosure - I don’t have very strong opinions on this, but running disclosure and your opponent dropping it is not an auto win for you (especially if your opponent is a novice, be better and beat them on substance).
K aff vs T-fw - I am ngl K affs were my favorite thing in the world to run so the neg has a slight uphill battle. However I have a high threshold for the aff defending their interpretation of topic/debate, so you have to be able to defend it.
(Below is stolen from Rose that I strongly agree with)
An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits on this - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not "dropped an argument" until you have actually MADE one
Evidence quality matters a bunch, I'll probably read evidence in close debates, and I won't fill in the blanks for your incomplete highlighting. I would prefer well-warranted analytics to bad, under-highlighted cards.
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!
∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨
1 - Policy/K
2 - Trad
3 - Phil
4 - Theory/T
Strike - Tricks
Tech > Truth
Fairness = Education
Spreading = Bad BUT Speed = Good
Add me on the Email Chain: email@example.com
(Speech Drop/NSDA File Share is honestly better!!!)
Klein Collins '22
Texas '26 (History & Government)
I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event I put the most effort into. I'm self-taught and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I'm a 3x qualifier for TFA State and broke at some other nat tournaments for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."
Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. Moreover, if you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.
In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.
I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.
Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better!
When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points.
I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a decision difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.
I'm going to default technicality before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it falls under technicality!
I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).
I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.
I don't keep time. Time yourselves!
I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.
As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m entirely capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I've become more experienced with the other forms of debate, I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."
Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!
I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.
Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!
If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."
I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.
CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.
I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.
Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative
K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.
While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.
Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess
I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.
Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.
Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.
I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.
Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)
Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism
I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.
I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.
STOP SAYING DTD!
I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. 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.
I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.
All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).
My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than the opponent's.
Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.
Hello! I'm Amanda Cruser. I did not debate in HS or College, but am the parent of a debater and have some experience judging. I am not super technical, but I will flow your cases and give you my undivided attention. I am comfortable evaluating whatever traditional arguments you present to me but you should treat me as a lay judge. If I cannot understand you I cannot flow your arguments, so please speak clearly and avoid spreading. I want to not only make an informed decision, but also to be able to give you helpful feedback.
Happy debating and please be kind to each other!
After a year of judging, I feel I am probably best at evaluating clash rounds than straight policy rounds, although I primarily judged the latter last year and enjoyed it. As a competitor, I was frequently on both sides of policy v kritik rounds and would be happy to judge these.
Good judge instruction feels like a lost art and will be rewarded handsomely. The best debaters make my job pretty simple by accurately pointing out the key issues in the round, why those issues are key, and explaining why they are ahead on those issues.
I care far more about your grasp of the arguments you choose to read than the actual content of the arguments. Please demonstrate a high understanding of strategy, regardless of what you read. I would prefer if you stay away from exceptionally bad theory arguments.
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)
Even though these were not my favorite arguments, I have voted for a state bad link, a "trigger warnings" theory argument, and Kant takes out settler colonialism.
I enjoy hearing creative/"cheaty" counterplan rounds. Sillier impact turns (spark, CO2 ag) are more difficult to win if handled properly. IR-based impact turns are fair game.
I much prefer specific K links to some portion of the aff instead of state good links packaged as having some relation to the topic.
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.
Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter.
Hiii!!! My name is Rubick and I enjoy judging speech and debate rounds. I am more of a debator but enjoy a good speech/interp round. Any questions can be emailed to my personal email at firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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 graduated in the past spring after debating LD for 3 years.
This is an overview- if u have other questions just ask before round
- if ur gonna spread share ur doc in an email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org) or create a speechdrop
- I usually give between 28.5-30
- if u power-tag evidence or miscut it will cause you to lose speaks and may be an auto loss depending on how reliant your argument is on it
- if u use any sort of derogatory language its a L20
- if u dont include trigger warnings and read something that would require one its a L20
- ***Just be a decent human being, its not that complicated***
- I dont mind traditional debate
- Theory is my favorite to judge- I will vote on disclosure if its done well
- Ks- I dont mind judging them but if ur running a complex identity k that requires knowing the lit. beforehand then I'm probably not ur best bet- anything else I have no issue with and will vote on
- Fem Ks are my favorite to read/judge
- If ur going to read tricks- strike me
- I think friv theory is hilarious and I'll vote on it (just dont be a jerk and read it against a novice)
Things I am okay with:
Stock/Lay/DAs (weighing and impacts are biggest voters in these rounds)
Theory (reasonable only; no frivolous shells)
K (topical only); identity k's are okay as long as you do personally identify with them
Things I am not okay with:
Abusive theory shells
Do not be rude to your opponent (just be courteous at the end of the day it's a debate round not a personal vendetta against your opponent)
Spreading is fine just share cases
Extend throughout round-I will not be extending for you
- 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
Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.
LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D
CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.
Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.
World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.
ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.