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

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 October 1, 2022 at 4:41 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 Sat September 18, 2021 at 7:06 AM 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 March 29, 2023 at 2:50 AM CDT

Updated 3/29/2023

Table of Contents:

Who am I?
Round Logistical Information
TL:DR
Public Forum
Lincoln-Douglas and Policy
Congress
Speech in general
Extemp specifically

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas, and have held this position since August 2020. Before that, I was a college student at the University of Minnesota where I ran our NPDA team (think extemp policy) and coached Public Forum for The Lakeville Debate Team from 2016 through 2020. In high school, I competed in Public Forum and Congress for Madison Memorial High School in Madison, WI.

I also run a summer institute for Public Forum at the University of Minnesota called Public Forum Boot Camp. Our website is here!

Round Logistical Information

Please make an email chain. Put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com (for PF debates) and bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on all email chains. Please use the following format in the subject line: "Round X Flight A/B, Tournament Name, School XX A/N 1, School YY A/N 2"

If I am judging you in PF or LD, you should create an email chain, send speech docs directly before the speech with evidence (not your analytics or paraphrasing) read during the speech in that document, in a format that does not permit you to edit the document after it is sent so that I can evaluate claims about evidence made later in the round (and, no joke, so that we can prep you out). You will get better speaker points if evidence exchanges are done via the email chain. If you're interested in getting a speaker award, I would recommend you do this - otherwise, you'll probably get no more than a 28.8.

I will start the round no more than 5 minutes after I get to the room, and as close to the round start time as possible. If you show up late, especially if pairings have been out for half an hour, I'm not going to give you extra time to pre-flow your case. Generally, as soon as I open my laptop to the ballot screen and get out pens, paper, and my timer, I'm ready to go, and expect that you are too. Flight 2 - please do the coinflip, pre-flow, and set up the email chain during flight 1.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision. I encourage you to pay attention to the RFD, take notes, and ask questions after the RFD (while a) being respectful of the fact that I have just spent a lot of my time and energy evaluating the arguments you've made during the debate, and b) being cognizant of the fact that the tournament has to move on at some point). I will not disclose your speaker points, but I average around a 28.4.

TL;DR: Debate to win and have fun.

I have been involved with speech and debate since 2014. I think about debate a lot, judge often, work in tab at about 1-2 tournaments per month, and have a deep respect and appreciation for how difficult and time-consuming debate is.

I will evaluate arguments on a primarily technical level, though it's easy to win on the flow if your arguments come from a sound literature base and are more true. I strongly believe debate is a competitive academic game that teaches important real-world research, critical thinking, argumentation, and public speaking skills, and that debate's competitive nature ought be embraced rather than ignored.

I have no strong preferences on the arguments you read in round. I frequently become cranky in rounds that are poorly executed strategically, where teams are rude to each other, where evidence exchange/prep time takes far longer than the allotted time, and those rounds with bad arguments (bad meaning: constructed from poor evidence, missing critical internal links, etc.). I strongly enjoy judging debaters that work hard, no matter the strategy.

Please be kind to both me and your opponents. We're all here to have a good time, and I'm very over the disdain with which many feel obligated to treat their opponents or their arguments during rounds. I am a terrible judge for you if you're not trying your best and engaging constructively with your opponents.

PF-specific:

I'm a relatively typical tech-oriented judge. I want to see well-researched debates about the topic with lots of analysis of evidence and clash. I have been known to destroy the speaker points of teams who do not debate about the topic.
I have no issue with speed. I have a tremendous issue with clarity. I will not flow off of a speech document. I will not be able to keep up with analytics or paraphrasing delivered quicker than a fast conversation.
Most circuit paraphrasing I see is academically dishonest and more teams should be willing to stake the round on "that's not what your evidence says". At minimum, you should have a doc with evidence ready to send before every speech. I would strongly prefer cut cards read every time you introduce a new piece of evidence.
If you are reading evidence that is less than 2 sentences long or takes you less than 10 seconds to read, reconsider. Make fewer arguments, but read more evidence to support those arguments that are really good.
In PF in particular, I would rather not listen to theory, though if that's the debate you want to have, I'm very confident in my ability to evaluate the debate. Your speaker points will go down if you initiate a theory debate in PF.
Critical arguments, structural violence contentions, and/or Ks with alternatives are all fine with me. You still need to win a link and an impact to win the debate. A mere discussion of structural violence is not, in and of itself, an impact. I would strongly prefer these arguments be related to the topic.
Second rebuttal should probably begin to condense the debate. First summary should almost definitely begin to condense the debate. If second summary goes for everything, there is an 80% chance that the first speaking team will win the debate.
I do not understand what the phrase "sticky defense" means, and at this point, I'm too afraid to ask. If your opponent has made an argument after the constructive speeches, you must respond to that argument in the speech immediately following your opponents having made that argument. If you do not, I will proceed as if you have conceded that argument. If your opponent has failed to respond to an argument and you want me to vote on it, it should be a substantial portion of your speech. You cannot extend an argument from the rebuttal to the final focus and expect me to vote on the argument.
Weighing, defined as argument comparison, should be derived from that argument's relative strength of link and the magnitude of that argument's impact. Please do lots of weighing.

LD/CX-specific:

I will flow the debate carefully. I will not flow off of a speech doc, and I flow on paper, which means that I need pen time. If you're reading analytics or your theory blocks, slow down.
I will disclose a winner and loser and give a complete RFD. I will not disclose your speaker points. I average a 28.4.
More than fine with traditional LD and policy strategies, including values and value criterion, plans, counterplans, disadvantages, and case arguments.
I'm fine with theory, but you can't go your top speed and expect me to catch everything. I use the doc to read evidence - not to backflow your analytics. I have a soft spot for creative "we meet" arguments and probably give more weight to well-executed reasonability claims/defensive theory arguments than many judges in the LD/CX pool. I have no predispositions for or against any particular paradigm issues - judge instruction on theory is paramount.
Also fine with kritiks. K's should isolate links that are more specific to the affirmative method, mindset, or fiated policy action, rather than being generic topic links. Alternatives should do something. Affs should debate the alt more.
IVIs are not the first layer of the debate just because you have called something an IVI. IVIs need to include an impact and comparative weighing just like any other argument. Otherwise, every argument you make should be labeled as an IVI because it would just come first, and that's obviously silly.
Less familiar with arguments featuring identity-based positions or postmodern philosophy, but I'm not ideologically opposed to them. I would recommend that you identify an external impact that your advocacy solves rather than claiming your argument is "the root cause" of theirs or something nebulous like "violence", because that quickly becomes cyclical and difficult to resolve.
If your strategy relies on one or more hidden tricks, I would strike me. Tricks are any strategies relying on the other team conceding claims without warrants in order to win the debate, especially including claims hidden in the middle of card text or tags without proper oral signposting. I will take great pleasure in demolishing your speaker points for introducing such arguments, and laugh if and when you complain about it. Strategies that rely on silly arguments (i.e., we don't know what words mean so negate, we can't determine right or wrong so negate, plan flaw the US is a land mass, etc.) I am more amenable to, provided that you are clearly "warranting" them in the first speech.

Congress-specific:

Please fully warrant arguments during your speeches. Please clash with other speakers that came before you. You should think of yourself as "working with" your side to advance debate on the item on the floor.
Rehash is bad, argument synthesis is good. If you are restating an argument that came before you, that's bad. If you are adding information to the debate, that's good. The worst part of Congress is the exceptionally lazy and substandard warranting and argument synthesis that happens during most Congressional debate rounds.
I value content more than many judges, but I still care about your delivery, and it can influence your rank.
Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. This is apparently an unpopular opinion among competitors, but it is a hill I'm willing to die on. People prepared to do more debate are more likely to do well in front of me.
Please don't yell at each other during questioning.
The PO will start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.
This is less of a paradigm issue, but here's my hot take: Congress would be better if each chamber were 10 students with an adult PO debating one item for no more than 75 minutes each, with the chambers rotating as if it were a speech tournament. Do with this information what you will.

Speech, in general:

I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.
I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)
Regardless of your rank, I deeply appreciate the work and thought you put into your pieces. I will generally enjoy pieces that have been carefully put together.
I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background.
I love judging POI. I think it's so cool.

Extemp specifically:

I expect to see you framing the question in your introduction. The most effective speeches synthesize current events into a concise bit of background information that answers the question: "why ask this question in the first place?"
I appreciate technical flourishes in Extemp: truly creative AGDs, clever transitions, and mic drop moments at the end of speeches. In excellent rooms, these will probably make the difference (plus the quality of your introduction and your overall approach to the question).
I need you to give me impacts and bring your analysis back to the language of the question. Impact work is severely under-utilized in Extemp.

Apurv Prabhakar Hire 2 rounds

Robert Roycroft Langham Creek 2 rounds None

Kristen Schulze Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Sonya Smith Hire 6 rounds

Tiffany Smith Langham Creek 1 rounds None

Gurjinder Toor Hire 6 rounds

Audrey Wang Bellaire 6 rounds

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 Fri March 10, 2023 at 10:08 AM CDT

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. I vote on what is on my flow. 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" exit your mouth I will automatically give you 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; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). In fact, if you run it, I will flow it. But 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. Finally, as I said I am a flow judge so you need to make sure to SIGNPOST.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards: Don't put me on the chain please, speak slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks: I flow taglines over authors unless the author is addressed in the round. 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. 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.

Speed: SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES I used to say I’m good with LD level of spreading but Policy was too much. In today’s world, I definitely feel like that has flipped as I have had more trouble with the speed in LD rounds versus Policy. 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. I don’t do .5 points and I will do ties (unless told by the tournament I can’t). 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. As a former competitor of a building program that had limited resources, I sympathize with debaters from small or under-resourced programs that, while they may not know the technical/national circuit jargon, still make good arguments. It can only benefit you, if you’ve had access to more privileged resources/instruction, 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.

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: If you have a V/VC or standard or whatever the jargon is these days use it. Don’t read it at the top and never mention it again. Tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent or why it doesn’t matter. 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: 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. You decided to run it, now you can explain it. If you're in PF don't run this in front of me. Period. 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 impact your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory: You can run it, 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: Honestly, 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.

Login to Tabroom:

Space City Swing NIETOC TFA Invitational

2023 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges