Space City Swing NIETOC TFA Invitational
2023 — Houston, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Updated Feb 6
Hi I'm Asad!!
Asad/anything except "judge"
I did ld, qualled, and coach ld, pf , and policy on the circuit -- hence im aware of the topic lit and i have done my research -- with that being said -- just bc ik the lit doesnt mean i already know everything -- explain and give reasons as to why ur arg is true bc i wont do the work for u
For all types of debates ↓↓↓
Whether this is be ld, policy, pf, or worlds every arg is an arg so hence its evaluated the same - that includes progressive args like k/s, larp, shells, etcc... with that being said make sure u explain ur arg give a rzn why it makes sense/warrant it out and do impact analysis/ow -- if you cant do that i cant vote off it -- i dont care about card v card debates if u dont ow and warrant i cant vote off it which means i prefer analytics over random cards -- this is something that im seeing is a new trend by giving defense -- taking something from ur teams masterfile doesnt show ur debate skill at all
For ld and cx prefs ↓↓↓
Short: Im pretty laid back, u do you -- I will do whatever u want me to do as long as you tell me-- signpost, signpost, signpost, signpost, and please for the love of god signpost or I will be lost on the flow!! -- explain the arg and then weigh it -- in the 2ar/2nr write out my ballot for me -- please collapse and ow i cant stress how important it is
(1) K's: Love the K debate but im tired of the same stuff Ive seen in my debate career run something new and exciting - im tired seeing old lit ie cap, sec, etc.. . i ran alot of islamo affs hauntology and fem thats what im most comfortable with and ofc common lit but explain just incase im not familiar w/ it -- framing is important in the k debate dont just drop it and pls dont reread framing in the 1ar/2nr you have to explain it and tie it back to the K -- if u make a perm to the K explain it dont just say "perm" and move on to another part of the debate -- i like seeing new and exciting k lit bc without innovation the debate world would be boring
(1) Larp: majority of my debate space was centered around here whether it be people i hit or myself so im most comfy with larp. cp specific make sure its competitive -- i absolutely hate util but will still vote on 1% chance of extinction -- conflict doesnt automatically mean nuc war pls explain the buildup on how it gets there im not doing the work for u
(2) T/theory: i feel like these can be messy debates alot of time ppl run it just to run it and dont even have any impact on the shells so its meaningless but i love t/theory debates especially since alot of affs arent topical either now these days - i also do vote on multiple condo bad if the neg is running like 4+ off -- i default edu> fairness but i will vote on anything as long as u tell me why -- disclosure theory is not something i usually vote on i think its unfair for the aff already in rds but run if u want
(3) Performance K's: I prefer topical K lit over performance's but I'll still evaluate it the same. I think a lot of performances ive recently seen are either just memes or straight out bad and the person/team doesnt know how to run it properly. Hence, pls know what you're doing or dont do it all
(4) Dense Phil: Very basic knowledge tbh - i was a phil major till my senior year of college so i know most common lit but clarify w/me just incase and dont expect me to fill in the gaps. If youre going into dense phil i probs wont understand it at much unless u explain
(5) Tricks: Strike
Extra stuff you can choose to read ↓↓↓
Some stuff I like: extemping a shell +1 speaks -- having fun -- saying "oopsie my opp conceded__" -- saying "its game over"-- short prep time -- call me Asad not "judge"
Misc: I write out a pretty easy RFD I assume you can fill in the gaps when I disclose but clarify if you need me to go in depth -- pls ask any question before rd if needed, no question is a dumb question -- use cross wisely its to pick out flaws not for clarifying -- i base speaks on strats, collapsing, warranting, etc... this is debate not interp --ask questions after rd as well ie strats for ar/nrs -- why ur analysis did/did not win -- what would i do and etc... -- u are more than welcome to ask me about case info as well
Conflicts: Alief Hastings & Stephen F. Austin
CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical
LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.
I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.
1. Make sure your address the topic.
2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.
3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.
4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.
1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.
1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.
1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.
2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.
1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.
1. Be an active member of the session.
2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.
3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.
4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.
speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is email@example.com
im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.
one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.
please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them
I debated policy for 3 years in High School, but I like to be able to hear what's going on. Spreading is allowed but if I cannot understand what is being said I will make 2 "clear" calls and after that it's speaker points reduction. My biggest thing is making sure you respond to all arguments made, and tie up all arguments made for a clear and straightforward round. Bonus points if you can make me laugh in round while staying on topic. Any arguments made during cross examination will not be considered. I would like to be included in any doc sharing, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 4 years going on my fifth
I have individual paradigms for the different events but to go over a few things
First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD
Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude
Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director
Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot
Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech
Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.
Conflicts: Cy Creek HS, Bridgeland HS, Blanson CTE HS, Cy-Fair High School
DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:
Each format has its own unique attributes, and you should always respect those attributes unless you explicitly read theory which compels me to respect your shirking of those attributes. I am willing to vote on unorthodoxy, but I have to have an important reason to vote on that unorthodoxy.
I am a former CX debater and a tab judge. CX is the format I'm most familiar with, but I have debated and judged virtually every format. When I say I am a tab judge, I don't mean to communicate that I won't evaluate claims based on my own knowledge and experience. If your case relies on my acceptance of your argument that the sky is red, you aren't going to win. I am a tab judge in the sense that you should not assume any one paradigm from me.
My philosophy is that each round has its own rules and must be evaluated depending on what emerges in-round. You should always tell me what is the focus of the round and why. Tell me what framework is most important, tell me what my role is, tell me what the role of my ballot is, tell me which voting issues are the most critical. Otherwise, I will make those decisions based on my own experiences and values.
It is not my job to automatically recognize an argument you are making or extend an argument on your behalf. I'm well-versed in a lot of the theory that might come up. But I prefer being exposed to new, niche, creative approaches and ideas. The caveat to that preference is I'm not well-versed in ideas I haven't yet been exposed to. Please loop me in.
Both traditional and progressive arguments are fine as long as you do them well. Don't ask me whether I prefer one argument over another, or whether I prefer one set of values over another. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's your argument to make. Context and evidence is everything, and it is very likely that I will prefer a sensible and empirically-backed argument over a sensible analytic. What I will say is that some arguments are extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to prove to me. For example, capitalism is a good or sustainable economic system, immigration causes overpopulation, the world is overpopulated, racism isn't alive and well, etc. I've seen ideas like those circulating in the debate space for a while. I don't know if debaters actually believe ideas like those, or if those are desperate grabs at a win, but don't run them on me. I would rather you collapse on ideas you are winning and prove to me why those are paramount voting issues than throw bigoted spaghetti at the wall and hope that breadth impresses me. It won't.
HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:
You frame the round and my flow determines the W. In order to win my ballot, you must 1.) provide a framing mechanism or specify which framing mechanism should be preferred and why 2.) win offense to that framing mechanism and prove that your advocacy has the strongest link to that framework and 3.) provide an impact calculus.
I always use gateway issues (T, theory, framing) to help frame my decision. If those issues don't come up, or their clash lacks depth, I consider how well each team has met their burden and allow that to frame my decision. Notice that I say this is how I frame my decision. This alone will not win you my ballot. I vote holistically. You might win one important issue and lose every other issue on the flow, resulting in an overall loss.
Be considerate about how you construct your case, how you write analytics, and how you organize your speeches. I am a bit of a gamesplayer in that I track how the flow of your speech mirrors your opponent's flow. Spending the bulk of a constructive speech reading your evidence into the round without reading offense on your opponents' case or reading defensive arguments is poor strategy. Collapses should be intentional, not an accident resulting from mass concession.
Your advocacy suite should be strategically organized and directly communicated so as to make the decision abundantly clear for me. I want clear extensions, roadmapping, and signposting. If you are going to roadmap, give me a detailed roadmap of the distinct arguments you plan to cover in your speech. Do not tell me the order will be 'aff and then neg', or something to that effect. Those are literally the only two sides we will be discussing in any debate round. It's a given that you will cover one or the other at some point in the round.
Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a slate (contextualizing the piece, stating the theme, listing the title[s] and author[s] of the source material[s], and reiterating the central theme of the piece), complete the exposition, rise into the climax, and then fall into the resolution.
Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and your binder to block different elements of your piece or characterize different characters. Utilize eye contact considerately as well.
Vocal performance is another consideration. Utilize vocal inflection, pacing, clarity, enunciation, accents (where appropriate), and volume to discern between different characters and different scenes. The intentional application of these elements can be used to juxtapose different elements, emphasize important ideas, and discern between different characters.
Physically move from point to point in accordance with the speaker's triangle. Use gestures to illustrate or emphasize points
The plot of your piece should be clear and easy to map. Whether you are utilizing one source or multiple sources, your piece should be paced and organized with lots of consideration. You should fully embody each character depicted, and there should be a clear distinction between each characters, each scene, each action, and each section in your piece.
Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a roadmap, two to three supporting arguments, a restatement of the roadmap, and a conclusion. Stick closely to this organization and signpost generously throughout your speech. Use verbal transitions and the speaker's triangle to help map your speech.
Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally throughout your piece. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and other elements to make your piece moving, memorable, and engaging. Utilize eye contact as well. Look at your judges and your audience-don't look through us.
Vocal performance is another consideration. Except on rare occasions when you may exercise a characterization, you should maintain even pacing, appropriate projection, varied inflection, vocal clarity, and a confident, conversational style. Avoid coming off as meek, stilted, confused, monotonous, etc.
For original oratory, make sure you clearly define your personal connection to the content in your introduction and conclusion.
For informative oratory, make sure your visual aids are simple, straightforward, easy to read, easy to decipher, and actually enhance your speech. Any attempts at humor are always a plus.
For any speech event, ensure that you are citing a healthy amount of sources in your speech. I like a balance between qualitative and quantitative evidence in the speeches I judge.
Content and presentation are equally important to me. I prefer three point speeches, but I will always prefer a holistically superior two-point speech to a superficial and sloppy three-point speech. The content should have depth and be logically organized.
***Email – email@example.com***
I am a University of Houston policy debater. While in high school I did CX debate for 2 1/2 years and LD debate for 1 year, and I am now also working with the Langham Creek High School Debate Program.
I would not say that I have any unusual opinions on any style of debate, so don’t be too worried about unusual judging tactics on my end. However, if you disagree with my decisions in regards to my decision or want me to elaborate on the round, my email is listed above to ask questions. I also would like to be included in the email chain – it makes it easier for me to follow the debate, which might just save you a few speaker points at worst or the round at best if I can’t understand you well.
Personal Likes and Dislikes:
LOVE overviews. Summing up everything into a nice, easy-to-digest segment makes my job easier and shows me that you are more than capable of interpreting the argument past the text itself. I am a very big believer in Albert Einstein’s quote: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”, especially when K arguments can oftentimes be presented as a haphazard array of philosophy jargon when not used properly.
I enjoy creative/unusual arguments. My high school years were full of experimentation of unusual arguments and things that are outside the norm. So long as you are not being discriminatory or hurtful (i.e., sexism good, racism good, etc.), I am okay with hearing something new as opposed to the same old boring Disadvantages and Counterplans.
I have no tolerance for any personal slander towards anyone else within the round based on race, gender, identity, orientation, religious or ethnic backgrounds, etc., and if I see it occur during the round, I will be certain to have it recorded on my judge sheet as to why you were voted down, why the round ended early, and why your speaker points were nonexistent.
A few more things to note:
- I will not be keeping time, that is the responsibility of the debaters in the room.
- I will not hesitate to say “slow down” or “clear” during your speech if necessary.
- Flex Prep and Open CX are both okay by me, but make sure everyone in the room is understanding of that.
- I am a diabetic that wears an insulin pump which might beep or otherwise make noise during a round. If it does, I will tell you to keep going if you stop and will tend to it as quickly as possible to minimize the interruption during the round. I let you know this because I don’t want you worrying about it or thinking it is a timer on my desk.
- Do not be alarmed if I do not have a lengthy RFD for your round; a short RFD does not mean your round was bad or not worth talking about. Truth is, I imagine if you are reading paradigms of your judges, you are probably not a terrible debater, but I will not do a whole lot of in-depth RFDs for time-saving purposes for both you and the tournament itself – I know everyone is on a tight schedule at these events and think that it is much more valuable for you as a debater to be probably rested, fed, and prepared for your next round and for the tournament to move along without interruption then it would be for me to tell you why I made my decision for the round, especially when I am more than willing to provide said reasoning over email if you are interested in what I have to say.
Accessibility - Don’t feel too stressed about the round. If there is any way that I can accommodate for disabilities or stress, let me know, and I will try my best. I don’t want the debate room to be an environment that is physically or mentally painful to exist in, so let me know what I can do if at all possible.
High Speaks - As long as you can maintain a good speed relative to your skill level and are consistently both easy to understand and comprehensive in your arguments, you will gain fairly good speaker points. +3 speaks and an optional crisp high-five if you can find Shostakovich's "DSCH" motif in his 8th Symphony and prove it to me - it is supposedly there, but I can't find it for the life of me.
Have fun, and let the debates begin!
LD and CX:
TRUTH OVER TECH.
Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine*. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.
*Don't run Topicality unless you're actually checking abuse - I haven't voted on T in, like, a decade.
Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.
I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.
I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).
With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.
Director of Debate - Dulles High School (2022 - Present)
Previous School Affiliations: Director of Debate - Westside High School (2017-2022), Magnolia High School (2016-2017)
Summer Debate Institute Affiliations: Lab Leader - Texas Debate Collective (2021-2023), Houston Urban Debate League (2019-2021); Student Life Administrator - National Symposium for Debate (2022); Coaches Institute Attendee - Texas Debate Collective (2020), RKS (2020), UTNIF (2018)
Post-Secondary Education: Texas A&M University - B.A. in English with a minor in Anthropology (2011 - 2015), M.Ed. in Curriculum Development and Instruction (2015-2017)
Competitive Experience: Policy Debate - Navarro High School (2007-2011)
Subject Line: Tournament name, round number, aff team, neg team. Example: Dulles Classic Finals: Westside ES vs Heights IC.
I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges a lot. As a result, I can be a bit of a grumpy gus, but I promise that I care. I'm glad that you're choosing to be here and hope that you continue to make that choice. If you require accommodation or are uncomfortable with something that is happening and I'm not picking up on it, please let me know either verbally or by email.
Non-Negotiables - The lightest consequence for a violation of these is me tanking your speaks. The harshest is stopping the round, reporting you to the tabroom, and contacting your coach. Anything between these two is on the table.
Safety, inclusivity, and accessibility are preconditions for us having an activity worth doing. Don’t be a bully, make threats, advocate/threaten self-harm, or engage in harassment. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist. Respect people’s pronoun preferences, provide accommodation upon request, and be kind to novices. A good rule of thumb is to debate "up" rather than "down".
Content/trigger warnings should be given if you have reasonable suspicion that the material you are discussing could be triggering. The onus is on you to ask the room to read the position. Observers are free to leave, but if any of the people who have to be there (competitors or judges) objects, read something else.
Be mature and take debate seriously. People sacrifice a lot to ensure you have the opportunity to compete. Show respect for everyone's time by getting to round as promptly as possible, having the email chain ready to go, and being efficient with time in round. Be considerate of other people's performances and avoid creating distractions. Return rooms to the condition you found them in. It is no one else's job to clean up after you.
- Do not clip cards (cutting them in such a way that omits/distorts the author's original meaning, such as omitting sentences where the author contradicts your point; complete cards are comprised of whole paragraphs; bracketing out offensive language does not constitute clipping) or steal prep (preparing materials or or talking with your partner outside of prep, speech, or CX time). If you decide to stake the round on ev ethics you will win if you are right and lose if you are wrong.
Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech times and will submit a decision with one winner and one loser. I will not be making decisions about behaviors that occurred outside of the round or prior disclosure period.
I will privilege technical execution in most instances; however, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want the ballot to consider is super important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation. It is your job to make strategic choices about your arguments. I usually decide pretty quickly, but I will read cards and sift through my flow in especially close or especially muddy debates.
Evidence quality matters a lot, but you need to be the one doing the comparison in your speeches. If the spin is good and you don't challenge it, I'm not going to be checking for you. Liberal use of rehilights are encouraged since they help to adjudicate between competing interpretations of what a piece of evidence says.
I pay attention to cross x but will not flow it. It is your job to incorporate cross x moments into your speeches if you want me to flow it.
Speaker points start at 28.5 and move up or down from there based on a holistic evaluation of your performance.
This is a research and communication activity, so you should be doing research and trying to communicate effectively. Too many debaters do neither, and I'm not a fan. Being well read, having a personality beyond doc botting debate bro, and trying to be persuasive will go a long way.
The documents you send during the debate are a reflection of how seriously you take your pre-tournament/round preparation. They should look good. Your cards should include author quals within the citation and you should highlight in comprehensible sentences.
I enjoy fast debates, but clarity, efficiency, and smart argument choices are way more important to me than speed. Please leave pen time when spreading, even if I am flowing on my laptop.
Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling, numbering, or otherwise compartmentalizing your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad.
Have a strategy and execute it well. I love creative and innovative approaches, so don't be afraid to experiment. If your strategy is to bamboozle your opponent, you run the risk of bamboozling me too.
Gish-Galloping is bad. I will privilege quality and specificity of argument over quantity.
Clash is good. I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that try to avoid engagement.
Line by line is preferable to long overviews. 30-45 seconds is the max overview l think has any sort of utility. There has never been an instance where a separate sheet for an overview has been necessary or helpful.
Please, I am begging you, learn to flow. If you have to waste cx flow checking, speaks will drop.
Beyond these preferences, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well, and have fun.
You should have some relationship to the topic, identify a significant harm or set of harms that is inherent to the status quo, and propose a method that solves or starts to solve the problem(s) you’ve identified. I am open to various approaches to satisfying these burdens but if I vote for you I should be able to explain my ballot in those terms.
Regardless of style, consistent and compelling narratives are key if you want to win while affirming.
Neg Case Debating
More case 2NRs, please. Your case pushes should include more than just impact turns/defense and cross applications from other pages. You should read cards/analytics that contest claims of solvency, disagree with causal claims, and make smart presumption arguments.
Both sides should have a clear model of debate (interpretation/counter interpretation) that they think is desirable. Creative approaches are welcome, but whatever you choose to do, you need to be prepared to defend your performance. Your model should account for the role of both the affirmative and the negative. Thinking about this through case lists that would be allowed for both sides under your model is a good practice.
I find the Limits + SSD + TVA = better clash/education/skills model of FW the most persuasive. Negative teams who make their explanation of this reasoning contextual to the outcomes the aff desires (better radicals, less gender/racial bias, etc.) will have an easier time than teams that go for fairness oriented models; however, I'm happy to vote for those as well. Again, do your thing and do it well.
Aff teams should be aware that I generally think that discussions about the object of the resolution are probably important. I do not think that USFG policy on that object is necessarily the best starting point. As such, you will have an easier time winning if you contextualize debates about the resolution within your theory of power and identify the better starting point prescribed by that theory. If I don't know how your model of debate solves/mitigates the impact turn to theirs, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
I am most excited to be in the back of debates featuring kritiks that are specific to the topic/aff you are challenging. I would prefer fewer offs so you have time to explain the K. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about.
Thesis arguments contextualize the link and link arguments support the thesis. They’re mutually reinforcing. When developing links, you should name them, theorize, link your theorization to the aff with a quote, and impact that out. Lazy link debating loses debates. If a link functions independently of your thesis, you should make that explicit. Don’t rely on me to implicitly follow your reasoning.
Examples are important at every level of these debates. Don’t just name check people, movements, and events. Explain their relationship to the argument. The earlier they show up the better.
Methods/Alternatives should do something that solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link debate. You should tell me what that something is and how it solves. I do not think this must necessarily be material change, a new paradigm or mode of relation is fine; however, it should make sense with regard to solvency claims.
I default to competing interpretations because affirmative teams should have to justify their choices. Reasonability is not an argument for your aff, but for the counter interpretation. Your interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. Topicality, like framework, is fundamentally a question of predictable limits and clash.
Disadvantages and Counterplans
Policy throwdowns are the kinds of debates where I am most likely to read cards, as I am far from a topic expert. Please be ready to send a card doc including all evidence referenced in the 2NR/2AR. As with K debate, I think you should know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.
Disads, ideally, are intrinsic to the action of the plan (Trufanov is right). Please have a cogent link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link.
Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but availability of literature should probably determine ground for both sides. Make of these takes what you will.
Counterplans v K affs don't make sense given my understanding of how counterplan competition works.
LD Specific Stuff
Everything above applies to LD. Probably no
Substantive phil debates are fun and I'd like to judge more of them. Syllogisms should be clear with an explicit relationship to how I weigh impacts.
Debates are evaluated at the conclusion of the 2AR or when I conclude that a winning NR/2AR is no longer possible.
Everything is open to contestation. I will not be evaluating AFC. If you want to include theoretical justifications for your framework, those are not good arguments, but they are acceptable since they don't insist that there exists an obligation to concede things.
I will not evaluate theory of the frivolous variety. You will lose if you make theory arguments pertaining to your opponent’s appearance or mode of dress.
I’m agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs.
If you must read tricks, I am okay for substantive tricks with a developed ballot story; however, I would prefer not to judge these debates.
I understand IVIs as K links that are flagged as theoretical reasons to vote against an opponent which functions independently of thesis of the kritik being true or having explanatory value. (EX: Aff reads cards that include slurs, neg team reads a kritik that uses slurs in aff ev to prove a link argument, aff team wins that thesis is false which takes out the basis for the link argument, neg team argues that the aff team should lose for creating a hostile and exclusionary environment even if they are wrong about how the world works at a thesis level.) This seems to be inconsistent with how debaters are using the term now and I am legitimately confused any time I hear people talk about them since it is unclear what broader governing claim(s) the arguments functions independently of.
PF Specific Stuff
I think having a format dedicated to accessibility for general audiences is good. If you want technical and fast paced debates, join Policy or LD. We'd love to have you. Prohibitions on content are silly, so make whatever argument you want, just don’t make it using a bunch of debate specific jargon. Treat me like a lay person who can flow.
Email chains are more efficient than this looking off of each others' computer nonsense. Cards make comparing evidence and holding cheaters accountable way easier. I will bump your speaks substantially if you do the unambiguously good things listed above in front of me.
Updated -Nov. 2021
Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS
I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity). My coaching style is focused on narrative building. As a debater I mainly relied on clean line by line extensions and sought out ways to sever my opponents' links. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. Big Picture, traditional impact calculus is preferred, but I am open to more progressive approaches to debate. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.5. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. More in depth explanations provided below.
Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant.
I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. "Framework" in PF is not necessary and I think it takes away time that can make arguments more substantive. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links. It's lazy, for example, to run a Cap K shell, and then assume I will extend the offense just because I am familiar with the argument. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. Too many rounds would an team ask for a card, and it ends up not being paramount in the round. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.
I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.
I'm used to high speeds in LD rounds, I'm usually annoyed when you stumble or don't articulate while spreading. I think if you choose to spread, then you should be good at it, so I will not say "clear" or "slow" if I can't understand you. I will just not flow your arguments. You are welcome to send me speech docs (firstname.lastname@example.org) but I won't fill in gaps in my flows after the fact. This is unfair for debaters who are able to convey themselves clearly on the flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing. I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because there is not enough substance in theory debates. If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I am likely to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are have very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.
I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions. I don't like to vote on Topicality because its usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.
I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.
I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.
- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.
- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.
- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.
- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.