Princeton UIL Fall Classic
2022 — Princeton, TX/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.
1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking
2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines
3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent
4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.
1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.
2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)
2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )
2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.
3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.
4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital
I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.
I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.
I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.
I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.
I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."
I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.
I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.
See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.
I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.
This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.
Speech: For oratory and Informative speaking, I am looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech.
Interp: I try really hard not to take notes during your performance as I want to give you my full attention. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, that is great. It means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I love that. I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well done you performed that selection.
Congress: Congress is a wonderful event. I want you to clash with the other debaters in the chamber but in a professional way. Don't be snarky. If we are in the fourth or fifth speech on a particular piece of legislation, you better be bringing something new for argumentation or your speech will not be ranked high. You need to embrace the role of an elected representative/senator. You are not a high school student during this event.
LD/PFD: If you spread you will not get the win. Spreading is for policy debate. Keep it there. In LD, good analogies are just as good if not better than evidence. I want to hear logic and reasoning. Seriously, if you spread, it will be really hard to get the win. In PFD, if you spread you will not get the win. This is the layperson's version of Policy. It's more evidence driven. But it is not policy. Seriously, do not spread.