Cypress Freeze TFA Swing at Jersey Village
2022 — Jersey Village, TX/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
As a former debater, I am qualified and will give feedback not only on your speech but also in ways you can improve your case. Be sure that you offer well developed arguments that show that you understand the topic, as well as your case. In debate, it is important to make sure that you have enough evidence to back up your theories, but also enough commentary to tie everything back to the case as a whole. Make sure your case is not just a bunch of cards after another, I want to know why and how things relate.
Framework and your speeches are extremely important. Your framework should have relevance and be upheld throughout all aspects of your case. If you can prove to my why your framework is stronger than your opponents, this will give you an advantage on the ballot. Not only that, but your speech should be convincing and not unclear. Speed is fine, but make sure that your value and criteria, warrants, authors, or anything you want me to remember is understandable.
To win my vote on the ballot, you must do the following things. You must clash with your opponent. Do not spend all your speeches telling me why your case is the best and should win. You must tell me why your opponents case falls. Make sure that you clash. If you don't, it's no longer debate. It becomes two students public speaking. It is important to clash on framework. Your contentions may fall but convince me that your value/criteria is more important and should be upheld over your opponents. I value framework over evidence. Impact is also an extremely important factor of the ballot. Make sure you are kind and respectful throughout the round. Good luck!
Hey! I’m Simon (I go by Amber) - firstname.lastname@example.org
Add me on speech docs & email chains :/
For state please read through the bolded stuff. Please.
A little about me:
I did Public Forum in High school from 2018-2022 for [REDACTED], qualifying to TOC, State, and Nationals three times each and clearing at all three sometime or another while winning a few national tournaments along the way.
Before we continue: I recommend you read through the bolded stuff or there is an immensely high likelihood that neither of us will enjoy the outcome of this round :/
I’m very tech, but I’m also not afraid of debaters who are willing to experiment with the flow.
Go literally as fast as you want. I can only handle about 350 wpm without faltering or missing stuff tho without a speech doc (which you should send).
A few misc things that people always get confused about in front of me: Quality > Quantity (Don’t make me get out more than 5 sheets pls), I LOVE TURNS + I’ll boost your speaks if you go for them, Counterinterps > RVIs, I have a low bar for perm acceptance but a high bar in extending them, Sticky defense is fake, and DA dumping is lame + loses speaks.
I won’t do any work for you – and I refuse to intervene with a few exceptions listed below. This also means I will not change my standards for extensions and frontlines in the case that the round gets flooded by a 10 sheet dam break.
I’m very pessimistic about the way PF is going – which is straight into a dumpster fire for norms. Thus, those of you who read progressive arguments will have a speaks floor of 28.5 (unless its bigoted in nature). Keep in mind I give a 26-ish on average.
I will evaluate literally anything progressive that occurs in front of me.
I pref first unless told otherwise.
Prefs/Strikes Info: [Scaled 1-Best -> 5-Worst]
Ask questions if you need to, but for PF I’m confident I can eval just about anything.
Always send speech docs.
Non-T Ks : 1 – This is what I read in high-school. I’m pretty up to date abt most non-T lit and I’m good at evaluating it. Be clear and you’ll be fine. On a side note do not read an Identity K if you don’t identify with the group - If you do that I bump this down to a 4. For interesting Non-T Ks, i.e., not basic identity Lit, go for it I love these but send speech docs. Also, pls don’t invalidate people’s identities when responding to or reading these – I’ll obliterate your speaks and won't eval. When responding please also tailor your basic identity K responses to the K itself or my bar for responses can literally be "they read off backfiles - kick the responses bc they generalize and marginalize identity".
Reps Ks: 1 - If it’s warranted this may be above a one. Even if it’s like a reps K against debating economics I’m chilling with it though. Keep it simple and don’t try to overcomplicate it. Please make sure not just to win the rep itself but why reps are a voting issue.
Topical Ks: 2 - Most topical links are pretty boring to me but so long as you have a coherent alt and rotb you’ll be fine. If it’s a weird alt explain it and you’ll be okay - I feel like most topical Ks end up being really badly warranted – especially in terms of how the alt solves – so just make sure the alt is well warranted.
Theory: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling and I’ll probably have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 3. (I consider anything related to dates or other stuff like that friv). I read both warranted and friv theory in high school and I def have biases towards or against certain kinds of theory. If something related to personal violence occurs – you do not have to read a shell and an IVI will be just fine (Trust me I won’t slight you for it being an IVI). BTW I DEFAULT K>Theory - so weigh in the opposite direction if you need to.
IVIs: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling, and I’ll have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 4. If its abt personal violence, it’s above a 1. If someone reads an IVI pertaining to plagiarism or something of the sort, I’d really prefer it to be a shell and it gets bumped down to a 4.
Phil: 3 (Better be coherent and clear) - Please explain it correctly. PLEASE. Just bc you win the phil side doesn’t mean you win the application side. These debates get very muddled so explain your author right. Know that I’ve probably read at least some of their lit unless you’re reading someone obscure.
Soft-Left (Specialized Frameworks for Substance Debate [i.e. fem framing or neolib etc…]): 3 - These annoy me. Why not read a K? If you drop the framing then I default that the arg is strictly substantive. Also, most soft-left args get convoluted bc people can’t properly explain the warrants behind advocating for their framework – please explain it properly.
Counter-Plans/[Technically Plans]: 3 - Go for it. I love counter-plans but I’ve seen so many fail. Please debate these correctly and extend the whole structure & implicate how it interacts with the whole flow. This technically extends to plans too but be careful in how you break PF Plan rules bc I’m highly unlikely to vote on it unless you warrant it super well.
Perms: 3 - Please explain the perm vs. alt debate & please explain why I should eval the perm in the rotb. If you can’t or don’t, then don’t read the perm. I also have a super-high bar for extensions on Perms – i.e. don’t just read the tag. Generally, not an amazing idea - I’d much prefer a line-by-line or Counter rotb/K than your reading 3 or 4 perms and hoping the debate gets muddled.
RVIs: 3 - Please don’t just dump these. I’ll be annoyed but I’ll evaluate it. Also, my bar for responses is very very low and you have to weigh RVI > Shell.
Trix: 4 - Same as RVIs. Also, if they're funny and you go for them, I'll give you a 30. Multiple layers that are unrelated also make my head hurt so please don’t.
Word PICs: 4 - I feel like most word PICs are unwarranted and friv, which is why this is down here. For words that most definitely deserve to have the other team drop - this is a 1 – I’m not going to give any examples but yk which words. That being said please omit the word itself when you read the word PIC unless you are permitted to say it, If I have speech docs, I’ll know what you’re referring to.
New Forms of Debate: 4 - If it's good, I will give you 30s. If it’s bad, I’ll be confused. Explain it well, Explain the structure well, and gl.
Topicality: 4 - I really (REALLY) hate T, but you can read it. Just don't be forcing on debating substance itself and instead explain the implications of the shell for norms instead of being all gung-ho about defending "the public in PF".
Pure Substance: 5 (I mean its normal debate - not that fun but I can judge it just fine)
A specific note on Fem Ks - Don’t read Terf lit. I’ll give you bottom speaks and if your opponents point out how its Terf lit my ballot writes itself. If I catch you reading statistics that specify debaters who are only of "the female sex" I will straight up drop the whole K on a perf-con - Ik this is intervention I do not care:) I DARE YOU TO READ STATS THAT ASSIGN GENDERS BASED ON NAMES.
Here are the cases I’ll intervene in the round:
You must read content warnings – for my and your opponent’s sakes. [I won’t down you for not doing it (unless the ops. read a shell) but I promise that I won’t pay attention to the technicalities of the argument and I’ll drop your speaks]
You must use the pronouns your opponent’s specify.
You must use the name your opponent’s specify.
(If you don't know - just ask. I'm not going to care abt responses like "I didn't know" if they read an IVI or a shell)
Don’t be a bigot.
Don’t put someone else’s safety in jeopardy.
If any of these occur, I won’t hesitate to vote on them.
Post-round me if you want.
I am the Director of Interp and Oratory/Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director prior to specializing in Speech and Debate.
Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Wimberley (TX)
First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.
Congress (As of 4/10/2023)
Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.
Interp (As of 3/09/2022):
I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.
Public Speaking (As of 3/09/2022):
Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.
PF (As of 1/21/22):
I try to flow pretty carefully, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.
Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.
- Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.
I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.
Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.
If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.
Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.
IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE ROUND CORRECTLY I NEED TO SEE THE EVIDENCE!
ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN - IF YOU DON'T 25 SPEAKS ---> email@example.com
context: As a new parent judge, I'm still learning multiple aspects of Speech and Debate. Consider meextremely lay.
YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the wrong things
Speed- I'm not too fond of speed. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most. A conversational pace is preferred.
Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, soDON'Tmake them.
How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Please don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from primary content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently and do your best.
Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.
Speaker Points-I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.
If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!
If you want the nice looking and well-formatted version of this paradigm, click here.
WHO AM I? I am the assistant debate coach at Dulles High. I mainly judge public forum. I use (they/them) pronouns. Please refrain from using “sir.” Thank you.
Please introduce yourself with your preferred pronouns.
Include me on email chains please. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm big on the public in Public Forum.
DEBATE FOR THE PEOPLE
I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person. If you include "burnt toast" in the final focus... massive respect and speaks. Memes and friendly banter are welcome if done well - and ONLY if done well.
HOW I EVALUATE DEBATE.
Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.
Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.
I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in public forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
I am very to If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.
I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)
THE BIG OOFS
These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.
1. Misuse of Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please be punctual.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.
Hello, my name is Ray Chacko.
I believe how we say is as important as to what we say. Teams, during debates, ignore the fact that their facial expression, tone and respect for the rules are delivering a subtle message about the team. They may have empirical arguments with supporting evidence but I believe in order to create a solid impression on the judge, each team member needs to adhere to the ground rules of respect, display a pleasant demeanor and be willing to express their opinion without argument or insults. I believe they also should take criticism of the opponents creatively and be willing to adjust the tone/message accordingly.
Tablua Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.
As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.
I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them
Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.
That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.
For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).
Despite never competing in debate, I have judged the majority of forms at many different levels, I have in the past also helped cut cards for teammates and participated in informal debate scrims.
I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.
That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF
At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not
I've done PF for two years. That's it.
If you don’t extend it in summary I won’t count it for final focus. Weigh.
-tech > truth
-you have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal
-I can't flow spreading
Don't be a jerk.
TLDR: do whatever i dont really care -- just dont be problematic
ask before round if u have spec questions, i currently do PF for A&M Consol
add me to the email chain - email@example.com
- Provide a trigger warning if necessary
- I find prog really fun to debate, but I don't trust myself evaluating it super tech. Run them at your own risk -- I mostly know/have ran topical Ks and theory, but be prepared for a very mediocre RFD
- speech docs and cut cards are a good norm !!
- I don't flow cross -- feel free to do open cross, take flex prep, or skip gcx if everyones cool w it
- Second rebuttal must frontline
- Defense is not sticky
- Weighing is nice in rebuttal, must be in summary. It's difficult to evaluate turns or das if they aren't weighed. Be COMPARATIVE PLEASE FOR MY SANITY and tell me why your arguments are better than your opponents.
- Please extend your full argument in summary and final focus. If you do not, I will be very sad :(
- warrant everything
- speaks are dumb, i usually give decent speaks
- If you're rude in cross, your speaks will drop. Be respectful. It's not that hard.
- If you spread, provide a speech doc, be clear, and ask if your opponent is comfortable with it. If they aren't, slow down. (I can't keep up w policy/LD spreading, but im ok w/ PF "spreading")
- +speaks if you make a joke in round
1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round.
2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast. While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.
3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument. Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible.
4. Additional items.
a. When sharing or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this.
b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.
I debated pf for 5 years on the TFA circuit, went to state and nationals.
-I evaluate arguments on the flow
-first summary doesn't need to extend defense. Unless the defense is frontlined in the second rebuttal, then you don't have to extend / frontline it until your final focus.
-Extend is a verb-saying the word "extend" is the best way to make sure i evaluate a piece of evidence at the end of the round. When extending don't just say the tagline, extend the warrant and the impact.
-I don't take notes during cross, if something important happens in the cross bring it up in your speech.
-I will say speed if you are going too fast but I will not say clear, that is your responsibility. I dont mind if you spread I can usually understand it and appreciate the strategy.
-I will evaluate "progressive" arguments ie. kritiks, plans, PIC if its done well and warranted.
-I evaluate link weighing before impact weighing and any weighing before no weighing at all.
Table of Contents:
- Who am I?
- Round Logistical Information
- Public Forum
- Lincoln-Douglas and Policy
- Speech in general
- Extemp specifically
Who am I?
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 firstname.lastname@example.org (for PF debates) and email@example.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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
I am a stock issues judge. I believe that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. As a stock issue judge, I generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.