Tabroom.com

Space City Swing NIETOC TFA Invitational

2023 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ravi Alluri William P. Clements High School 1 rounds None

Sofia Barreda Langham Creek 2 rounds None

Jennifer Brown Hire 6 rounds None

Luis Carvajal Picott Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Wilson Chang Cinco Ranch High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 6:09 AM CDT

Background: Coach/Sponsor of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 2nd year as Coach/Sponsor, 9th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know about theories/kritiks nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

angie chen St John's School 2 rounds

Brian Daniel Grand Oaks High School 6 rounds

Ava Daugherty Langham Creek 4 rounds

Mohammad Diwan William P. Clements High School 1 rounds None

Priscilla Eaton Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Salik Faisal Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 1:20 AM CDT

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

Jorge Gomez William B. Travis High School 6 rounds

kenya Idank Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Bright Ilochi Hire 6 rounds None

Murtaza Kazmi Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 2:59 PM CDT

Personal Background/General Information:

My name is Murtaza Kazmi. I competed in Congressional Debate and International Extemp at Seven Lakes High School for four years.

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of prejudice or discrimination in round. If you or your partner display any of those characteristics, I will down you immediatley. I enjoy humor in round, but make jokes at your own risk. Debate is not a space for over-agressiveness. I understand sometimes speaking over each other, but do not be mean to your competitors - this will also lose points on my ballot.

Debate is a space to communicate, not to hate!

Congress:

Congress is both a speaking and debate event in my view - successful representatives will show skills in both facets.

Rhetoric should be used effectively (not just to fill in time in a speech).

Each argument provided must have quantified/qualified evidence (with sufficient sourcing including date) along with a tangible impact.

AGD's should be unique (not canned) and have an effective tie-in to the topic.

Speeches should have succinct "action claims" (etc. this bill will fosters economic growth).

Mention the different sections/resolved clauses of the legislation in your speech.

Speeches without conclusions (or ending with pass/fail) are incomplete speeches and will be marked down.

Refutation is expected and speeches without ref (with the obvious exception of the author/sponsor) will be marked down

Any rehash will be marked down

Go for alternative speech structures at your own risk (unified analysis, defensive points, etc.), but speech without offense is not a good speech imo.

Authors/Sponsors can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. Explaining the Problem (with quality evidence)

2. Discussing the solution that each part of the legislation provides (with quality evidence)

3. Elaborating on the human impact of both the problem and the solution.

Crystal Speeches can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. Group arguments from both the Aff and Neg into logical and general claims

2. Show new evidence and explains logically why one side is correct

3. Explores the argumentative and human impacts of one side being correct

Presiding Officers can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. attaining or nearly reaching the maximum number of both speeches and questions in a session

2. maintaining decorum and parliamentary procedure at all times (including accurately choosing questioners and speakers)

3. limiting fluency breaks or awkward phrasing

4. making humorous remarks from time to time (when appropriate)

Extemporaneous Speaking (IX/DX):

Similar to Congress, I weigh both speaking and content with a slight preference for better content over better speaking.

Each speech should have a MINIMUM of 7 sources (1 in the intro, 2 in each subsequent body point).

You can try alternative speech structures at your own risk (eg. two points), but it must make sense in the context of the topic.

Intro must include AGD, effective transition, background information and significance, state question and answer.

All body paragraphs must have succinct claims with dated and quality sources with significant analysis and IMPACT.

I will appreciate book sources and local newspapers sources (in IX) a lot!

If your point doesn't make logical sense without the quantified/qualified evidence, it is not a good point.

You have to restate the question and brief answer in your conclusion.

Speeches without conclusions are incomplete.

Speakers that use tonal and speed variation, effective hand gestures, eye contact will rank better than speakers who do not.

Public Forum/Lincoln Douglass:

I am flay, leaning towards content, but bad speaking will lose a lot of points on my ballot.

I'm not well versed in theory or other progressive arguments, but if violations (eg. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.) are made that are grounds for a loss, then you can bring them up in round and if I agree then I will down the other debater.

I prefer substanatiative debate over progressive (theory, disads, K's, etc).

If you do run progressive arguments, there must be a clear and solid link to the resolution.

Teams that explain their link chains and show their impacts and impact calculus better than the other team will win my ballot.

Weighing impacts is necessary to win my ballot.

If you drop an argument, link, or card and try to bring it back up, I won't weigh it.

Weighing should begin no later than the Summary speeches.

I am tech over truth unless something is blatantly wrong (eg. we will be extinct from a squirrel takeover of Earth).

My average speaks will be a 28 (from 25-30) and can go up/down depending on your performance in round.

David Kennedy Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Feifan Liu Bellaire 6 rounds

Walton-Gray Martin Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 1, 2023 at 10:59 AM CDT

Summary:

If you do not want to read all of my paradigms, here is a summary of the overall view. Personal arguments made against an opponent will result in an automatic loss. Spreading is extremely discouraged. All debaters should be respectful and professional. Debaters will be allowed to finish their sentence if time expires. Oral prompting not related to time will not be allowed. Please refrain from debate terminology as much as possible. I recommend making an argument if the validity of any evidence is called into question. I will generally not review it unless the situation and rules deem it necessary.

General Points:

Argument Types:

I am comfortable with almost any type of argument so long as it is well reasoned. However, if any argument is made specifically targeting the member(s) of the opposing team, the team making such arguments will automatically lose. There is no place for personal attacks. For example, if a team ran a critique against an opponent with difficulties pertaining to their eyesight, then I would automatically vote for the other team.

Speaking Style:

I am comfortable with any speaking style with one major exception. I am not a supporter of spreading. There is absolutely not practical use for speaking that fast. At the end of the day, debate is an incredible educational opportunity that can provide an amazing foundation for skills needed in the future. Spreading does nothing to help a student learn and create effective communication skills. However, I do understand that time constraints may require quick speaking. This is acceptable, but I believe a faster style of speaking is very different than spreading. To simply explain, if the speed of speech impacts the clarity and persuasiveness of arguments being made, then I believe that is too fast. I understand that still creates some ambiguities, and I am happy to clarify or explain further if needed.

Decorum and Attitude:

I believe all debaters should be respectful of one another no matter if they have won a national championship or never won a round. If there is any argument, style, or attitude that an ordinary person would consider to be disrespectful, then the team conducting themselves in that manner will find it far harder to persuade me. For example, if one team feels the need to begin yelling at their opponents, then I will find it far harder to vote in favor of that team. The ability to calmly, logically, and respectfully debate is something incredibly important to me.

Time:

I believe that an essential skill for a debate is effective time management. I will generally allow a speaker to finish their sentence or quickly finish their point. For example, I will usually not allow a speaker to continue for more than five to eight second after their time has expired. I highly recommend each team keep time for themselves and for their opponents. I will also keep my own independent time to verify.

Prompting:

Unless the rules governing the tournament say otherwise, the only oral prompting I will allow would be time marks. Other than that, all other oral prompting will be barred. However, if a team member wants to pass a pre-printed document, then generally I would consider that acceptable.

Vocabulary:

Please keep specific debate terms to a minimum. For the most part, their is no practical application for the use of these terms. Although I am a former debater and understand them, a team that is able to make arguments without using them will be more persuasive to me.

Evidence:

Unless the governing rules of the tournament specify otherwise, I believe the sharing of evidence, cases, etc. is up to the discretion of the individual teams. However, if one side calls into question the validity or authenticity of any evidence, I believe the accused team should produce the evidence to the other team. If it is not, then I will likely disregard the use of that evidence. I will not independently ask to see evidence, however, if the situation requires my review, then I will do so at the teams request. Paraphrasing should be in your own words, but it should essentially be the same as the source being paraphrased.

Debate Specific:

Public Forum:

spreading is highly discouraged
Strongest arguments are supported by sound reasoning and good authority
Weakest arguments are not well reasoned and/or not supported by authority
Unless the governing rules say otherwise, I highly discourage the advocation of a plan or counter plan. Instead, I recommend advocating for a general proposal if you feel it necessary. For example, if you want to advocate against the status quo, I recommend providing possible alternative options instead of specifying a plan.

Lincoln Douglass:

spreading is highly discouraged
I understand LD often gets deep into philosophical principals, however, I feel it is still important to clearly and accurately explain concepts in order to make a persuasive argument.

Policy:

spreading is extremely discouraged. Throwing as many arguments at your opponent as possible is not persuasive to me. Prioritize.

Aff:

has the burden of proof and will be expected to meet that burden in order to be persuasive.

Neg:

if a counter plan is presented, that plan will be held to the same burden of proof as the AFF’s plan

Congressional Debate:

chair shall follow applicable rules for recognizing speakers
The chamber shall follow applicable rules for procedure.
Respect shall be shown the all students and to the chair.

Armida Montemayor Hire 6 rounds None

Layla Nguyen Langham Creek 4 rounds None

Cindy Petrash Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 2:57 AM CDT

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Apurv Prabhakar Hire 2 rounds

Robert Roycroft Langham Creek 2 rounds None

Kristen Schulze Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Sonya Smith Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:49 AM CDT

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

Tiffany Smith Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Gurjinder Toor Hire 6 rounds

Audrey Wang Bellaire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM EDT

she/her

current pfer (bellaire LW)

add me to your email chain: audreyw8ng@gmail.com <-- also use this for questions before round if u have any

- title the email Round # and your school code (ex: R3 Bellaire LW or Semis Bellaire LW)

if ur not a pfer im lay

i have experience judging extemp but idk how great of an extemp judge i am tbh

for pf (u can also probably cross apply most of these things to ld too):

my paradigm is pretty similar to most bellaire pfers

tech > truth unless it's super dumb (the sky is most definitely not purple.)

i don't flow cross so if you want it to end up on my flow, bring it up in the next speech

historically, me not timing has been pretty problematic so i'll probably time you unless i'm super super tired and get lazy lolllll

there's no such thing as sticky defense. if it's dropped at any point i dont care anymore

extend and extend well

if it's not mentioned before or during first summary i will not evaluate it. anything new after second summary will NOT be evaluated (pf)

do not try to run 10 contentions and extend the ONE that ur opponent drops ... i will be very very sad

no tricks. by far the stupidest way to try and win.

probably don't read theory, especially disclo, or k's i'll probably not evaluate it the way you'd like me to

im pretty good with speed but please send speech doc if ur gonna spread

signpost (+ roadmap b4 speech)

warrant everything

be nice

weigh (+ warrant) + metaweighing is cool too

28 speaks is usually the default. 29 is common, but 30 is pretty rare. make me laugh or make a blackpink reference for a bump

no isms (racism, sexism, etc). no homophobia. no offensive things period. i will drop ur speaks and potentially down u for anything offensive.

don't run counterplans in pf........ i cannot evaluate it

flex prep is alright, but if ur opponent stalls up all your prep time by answering ur question slowly.. that's on you

love love love collapsing - i think it's super strategic and makes judging so so so much easier

try to preflow before round if flip is settled already (but i get it if u don't)

ask any questions before round if u have any

make the round fun for me to judge. i want to be interested

write my ballot for me, don't make me think too hard, i'm not too good at that

i understand tech problems, but i'm not gonna wait for 5 minutes for you to pull up a card, 2-3 minutes max (this is already generous honestly), everything after is a drop in speaks (.5 speaks every 10 extra seconds)

on the topic of cards... please have good evidence ethics. if ur opponent has bad evidence ethics call em out so i can check the card. i'll drop a card if u can tell me why the article/author is unreliable properly

don't post-round. my decision is final i dont need you to give me 10 reasons why you think you should've won when i already finished my ballot. i probably won't disclose end of round just to avoid this, but if you have any questions after round feel free to email me, i can't guarantee an immediate response, but i'll respond eventually, also lmk that i judged you so i dont think ur some rando who got my email from nowhere. again, do not try to use this as a way to change my pov; it won't. this is only for asking any questions regarding my comments.

no offense in round = i presume neg

if you made it to the bottom of my paradigm, tell me in the last few seconds of ur 2nd to last or last speech. i'll bump speaks :)

gl hf

Brian White Langham Creek 2 rounds None

Brandon Wu Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 17, 2021 at 3:19 PM EDT

Hello! I competed for four years at Klein High School (2016-2020) mainly in PF and Extemp, typically on the local circuit with a few national circuit tournaments here and there (#smallschool). I now study International Political Economy at Georgetown University. Paradigm is in order of events that I'm most likely to end up judging.

======================================================================
PF - for less experienced teams:

In your constructives/cases, try to craft arguments that clearly explain how you access your impact; generally, I prefer impacts that can be measured and linked well to what you're saying.

For rebuttal, respond to each argument in the order they're presented (line-by-line). Second speaking team's rebuttal should provide some defense of their case (responding to your opponents' args in first rebuttal). Also, please provide a roadmap (the order of which sides you'll be addressing) at the beginning of your speech, starting after second rebuttal!. Finally, while giving the speech, please tell me which arguments you're addressing/defending (ie: to respond to my opponent's Contention 1....).

For summary, I think collapsing is important in addition to covering both sides. Explain to me the most important arguments in the round (re-mentioning the claims, warrants, and impacts) and why you're winning them. Moreover, you should give reasons why your opponents are not winning their arguments by repeating/extending the responses your partner made in rebuttal (aka defense). I advise against bringing up new arguments in the second summary speech.

For final focus, you should only bring up arguments that were mentioned previously in the debate round (so no new evidence/arguments). Give me reasons to vote for you and help write my ballot for me. A big picture final focus that incorporates elements from your partner's summary will help win you my ballot.

A few other things: I won't vote off of crossfire arguments, please time yourself and your opponents, and pre-flow before round! If you have questions about my decision and your coach is cool with it, feel free to reach out via email at brandonw2002@gmail.com or message me on Facebook.

======================================================================
PF - for more experienced teams:

TL;DR: Tech > truth, roadmap/signpost, extend offense at the link/impact level in summary & FF (2nd rebuttal encouraged), weighing & collapsing are must-haves, no new args in the second summary and beyond, I default 1st speaking team with no offense, don't be rude or run arguments that are uninclusive, & ask me any questions before/after round.

1) Tech > truth unless it's offensive, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or racist (which will result in an L20). Framing/weighing mechanisms are great – the earlier they're introduced, the better. Roadmaps & signposting are a must.

2) Second rebuttal should frontline at least turns (otherwise up to you strategy wise). For both rebuttals, don't read new contentions as an "overview," disads are fine.

3) Arguments should be extended at the link and impact level - extensions should include card names with a summary of the evidence (Hapner '19 says xyz). This includes turns - so if you extend a turn, explain how it links into an impact! Both teams should extend args in summary & FF, and I encourage extensions in second rebuttal.

4) Speedwise, I'm a 7/10 in-person, 5 for cases & 6 for rebuttal-onward online. Speaks will be evaluated based on word economy, fluency, and strategic choices you make in the round (starting at a 28). Collapsing and strong weighing = high speaks! Incorporating some persuasive rhetoric is great in FF, as opposed to just giving a sped up summary.

5) Both teams should be able to extend defense in summary. Please don't read "new in the two" (second summary onward) - reading new evidence or analysis is a disadvantage to the first speaking team, and your speaker points will be docked.

6) Another important part of weighing is evidence comparison, so please tell me why I should prefer one piece of evidence over another (i.e. postdate, methodology, etc.), so that it won't be left to me to decide 5 minutes before I write my ballot. I will ignore misrepresented evidence from my decision, and it will harm your speaks.

7) Crossfire shouldn't be a shouting match. Use common sense - don't be rude, don't cut people off, etc. I won't explicitly flow crossfire, so make sure anything important you want me to consider is in a speech.

8) I will try to disclose (if allowed) if I think I'm able to make a reasonable decision within ~3 minutes after the end of second final or after I call evidence. I will likely disclose in all elim rounds unless you would like me not to (please let me know before hand).

9) If there's no offense at the end of the round, I'll default to 1st speaking team (given the structural advantage that 2nd speaking team has in terms of extending offense).

10) I may be lost if you try to read progressive arguments in front of me, but if it's explained very at a regular pace & explained well, I will attempt to evaluate it. Don't bank on it as a voter though (so if you plan on running disclosure, tricks, or 30 speaks theory, may want to strike me). If your opponent is clearly unfamiliar with theory/progressive argumentation, don't read it.

Debate is meant to serve as an activity in which you can continually improve. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at brandonw2002@gmail.com if you have any questions about my decision or about my paradigm; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round starts!

======================================================================
Extemp:

1) Organization of your speech is critical to help me understand your analysis – I like the seven part intro (or at least most of the elements: AGD, link, source, significance statement, question, answer preview) and on-tops (transitioning between points by using facts/jokes). If you have no idea what I'm talking about here, don't worry – all I ask is at least for a roadmap in the introduction.

2) Throughout the speech, make sure you're clearly linking back to the question. If it's a why question, make sure you're telling me why. Going over history/context should be reserved for the intro!

3) I appreciate slower-paced speeches, but if you're clear and understandable at a faster pace, go for it. Try to use hand gestures just to emphasize specific things, otherwise leave at your side. Vocal inflection/tonal variety is always great.

4) ~Two sources per point indicates to me strong grasp of source integration into your analysis, but try not to sound like you're just reading off evidence like in a debate round. Incorporate your own thinking into it! Also, using more credible thinktanks/institutions/research studies will strengthen your analysis.

Similar to what I said in my PF paradigm, the great thing about speech events and tournaments in general is how you can track your improvement. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at brandonw2002@gmail.com if you have any questions about my feedback; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round begins.

======================================================================
Speech & Interp: Because I was obliged to compete in platform events my freshman and sophomore year, I have some background in speech but not much in interp. For interp events, I'll be evaluating you based on the TFA/published ballot categories. Here are a few things specifically for speech (for future sake too!):

1) Have a roadmap very clearly in the introduction. I appreciate a good device :)

2) Content is what helps you stand out in platform speeches – having good source integration is always a plus in prepared speech events!

3) Organization is crucial for me to understand what you're trying to get at – having a bunch of ideas that don't really seem related will affect your ranking.

4) Make sure you don't overuse hand gestures, just use them for emphasis. Any pace you're comfortable with works as long as you're clear and understandable.

5) Try to be as close to the time limit as possible without stalling/being repetitive – the more content the better!

======================================================================
Congress: I did some Congress, mainly TFA + some NSDA Senate. See Extemp for certain pointers on how I evaluate 'extemporaneous' speech events. I appreciate solid analysis with sources in speeches, and clash is highly encouraged even starting with the First Negation speech. The PO will almost always make my ballot (esp. if they volunteer!), though I will usually rank good speakers in the room higher.

First Affirmation and First Negation speaker should break down the description & effects of a piece of legislation. Generally quality > quantity in terms of number of speeches. Make sure you're active in the chamber for questioning (esp. when no one else wants to question).

======================================================================
World Schools: I have little experience with Worlds, but please signpost so I can keep up with where you are on the flow. Remain engaged in the round through POIs. Weighing/argument comparison is appreciated in the last few speeches, and engaging with your opponent's arguments is critical. Will update this portion of the paradigm if/when I judge more.

======================================================================
Policy/LD: The only experience I've got in these two events are a few rounds of UIL Policy & LD (traditional), but I (hopefully) should be able to flow the round. I prefer traditional over progressive argumentation, and make sure you're weighing/signposting throughout the round. See my PF paradigm on other topics (e.g. speed), and feel free to ask me questions before the round on anything specific!

Edward Wu Memorial High School 6 rounds None

Meghan Avis Yen Bellaire 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:37 PM CDT

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

Follow precedence with few mistakes
Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Login to Tabroom

Space City Swing NIETOC TFA Invitational

2023 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges