Cypress Freeze TFA Swing at Jersey Village
2022 — Jersey Village, TX/US
LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Updated Feb 6
Hi I'm Asad!!
Asad/anything except "judge"
I did ld, qualled, and coach ld, pf , and policy on the circuit -- hence im aware of the topic lit and i have done my research -- with that being said -- just bc ik the lit doesnt mean i already know everything -- explain and give reasons as to why ur arg is true bc i wont do the work for u
For all types of debates ↓↓↓
Whether this is be ld, policy, pf, or worlds every arg is an arg so hence its evaluated the same - that includes progressive args like k/s, larp, shells, etcc... with that being said make sure u explain ur arg give a rzn why it makes sense/warrant it out and do impact analysis/ow -- if you cant do that i cant vote off it -- i dont care about card v card debates if u dont ow and warrant i cant vote off it which means i prefer analytics over random cards -- this is something that im seeing is a new trend by giving defense -- taking something from ur teams masterfile doesnt show ur debate skill at all
For ld and cx prefs ↓↓↓
Short: Im pretty laid back, u do you -- I will do whatever u want me to do as long as you tell me-- signpost, signpost, signpost, signpost, and please for the love of god signpost or I will be lost on the flow!! -- explain the arg and then weigh it -- in the 2ar/2nr write out my ballot for me -- please collapse and ow i cant stress how important it is
(1) K's: Love the K debate but im tired of the same stuff Ive seen in my debate career run something new and exciting - im tired seeing old lit ie cap, sec, etc.. . i ran alot of islamo affs hauntology and fem thats what im most comfortable with and ofc common lit but explain just incase im not familiar w/ it -- framing is important in the k debate dont just drop it and pls dont reread framing in the 1ar/2nr you have to explain it and tie it back to the K -- if u make a perm to the K explain it dont just say "perm" and move on to another part of the debate -- i like seeing new and exciting k lit bc without innovation the debate world would be boring
(1) Larp: majority of my debate space was centered around here whether it be people i hit or myself so im most comfy with larp. cp specific make sure its competitive -- i absolutely hate util but will still vote on 1% chance of extinction -- conflict doesnt automatically mean nuc war pls explain the buildup on how it gets there im not doing the work for u
(2) T/theory: i feel like these can be messy debates alot of time ppl run it just to run it and dont even have any impact on the shells so its meaningless but i love t/theory debates especially since alot of affs arent topical either now these days - i also do vote on multiple condo bad if the neg is running like 4+ off -- i default edu> fairness but i will vote on anything as long as u tell me why -- disclosure theory is not something i usually vote on i think its unfair for the aff already in rds but run if u want
(3) Performance K's: I prefer topical K lit over performance's but I'll still evaluate it the same. I think a lot of performances ive recently seen are either just memes or straight out bad and the person/team doesnt know how to run it properly. Hence, pls know what you're doing or dont do it all
(4) Dense Phil: Very basic knowledge tbh - i was a phil major till my senior year of college so i know most common lit but clarify w/me just incase and dont expect me to fill in the gaps. If youre going into dense phil i probs wont understand it at much unless u explain
(5) Tricks: Strike
Extra stuff you can choose to read ↓↓↓
Some stuff I like: extemping a shell +1 speaks -- having fun -- saying "oopsie my opp conceded__" -- saying "its game over"-- short prep time -- call me Asad not "judge"
Misc: I write out a pretty easy RFD I assume you can fill in the gaps when I disclose but clarify if you need me to go in depth -- pls ask any question before rd if needed, no question is a dumb question -- use cross wisely its to pick out flaws not for clarifying -- i base speaks on strats, collapsing, warranting, etc... this is debate not interp --ask questions after rd as well ie strats for ar/nrs -- why ur analysis did/did not win -- what would i do and etc... -- u are more than welcome to ask me about case info as well
Conflicts: Alief Hastings & Stephen F. Austin
please no spreading
I'm a second-year debater for Seven Lakes Highschool and the second speaker for Seven Lakes CL. Add this email to the email chain used for round email@example.com
I mainly do PF; I understand how things work, what stock arguments are, and the topic. I'd like you to consider me the median between Tech and Flow. I'll vote off of progressive args, I'll understand what's happening if any theory is happening, but if you can't warrant it, well, I probably won't vote off it. I can flow quite fast and understand it, but if it gets messy or like it's not clear, I'll call it out by saying, "clear!" or "slow!" but the likelihood that happens is low so take that how you see it.
TLDR: I am the main PF and understand stock and progressive argumentation well. I can flow pretty fast. Take that how you will.
For Speaker Points.
high speaks if you start an email chain and add my email Ex. "Blake R5 Cinco Ranch 1st Aff vs. Seven Lakes CL 2nd Neg" don't be patronizing or condescending. I'll tank your speaks if you do. Starting at 28 speaks, it will move up or down depending on your strategy and interactions in rounds.
∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨
Add me on the Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Speech Drop or the NSDA File Share works too!
Policy - 1
K - 1
Trad - 2
Phil - 2
T - 3
Theory - 3
Tricks - Strike
Tech > Truth
Fairness = Education
FW is nonnegotiable
Spreading is bad, but Speed is good!
Klein Collins '22
UT Austin '26 (History & Government)
I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (think 2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event that is offered, LD was always my main event. I'm self-taught, and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school during my junior and senior year I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I'm a 3x qualifier for TFA State and broke at some other tournaments for anyone who cares about that.
Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as power house schools. Moreover, if you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings consistent with debate, please reach out (obviously don't do this during the round, but before or after is perfectly acceptable). I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.
As for shortcuts, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of arguments. I think as a judge I am obligated to not allow my own biases related to debate styles impact the RFD of the round. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want to, and I will adapt accordingly.
I flow by ear for the most part, so I only want/need access to the case if discrepancy regarding evidence presented arises in the round for any reason. Although I can't force you to send your case, I highly encourage it (especially if your opponent has agreed to send theirs). This is also true for any additional cards you throw out in the rebuttals.
Please give a roadmap before your speech and signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss what all you are saying. The clearer you are with the tags, the better.
When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is ultimately bad for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I am a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points at the end of the round.
I expect to see clash over framing. You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be looking at the debate through. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason. If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare the evidence to which makes it hard on me to produce a decision. I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.
I'm going to consider technicality before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD, and evaluate only what is said in round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it falls under technicality.
I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).
I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into them. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.
I don't keep time. Time yourselves. I also don't flow CX. When it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions either way. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.
Current Voting Record: Aff (51%) vs. Neg (49%)
As mentioned, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career, so although it is a simple strategy compared to others, I find it very effective. Case debate is something I’m very capable of evaluating. I will say though, as I became more experienced with the other, "progressive" forms of debate I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."
Tell me when something is non-unique. I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate right there. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position.
I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, a good strategy that is very interesting to hear is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.
Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!
If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."
I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever ultimate impact you are trying to get me to see. Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. You can never go wrong with a good Disad! Advs are cool too, but I figured that didn’t need to be said.
CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept and strongly encourage Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.
I am familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.
Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative
K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.
While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally through. Although, if you’re going to run a K, but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all in the round some time for flowing and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.
Familiar: Cap, Set Colonialism, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess
I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little if anything to do with the resolution at hand. Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.
Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms, you probably don’t understand it that well.
I am familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner. Unrelated, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.
Empirics > Analytics in most cases unless proven otherwise!
Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism
I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.
I can say firmly that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.
STOP SAYING DTD!
I will not vote off disclosure theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debate for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity, I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.
I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.
All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter like FW that is only present in LD).
My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than the opponent's. Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros vs. cons is most likely going to get the W.
My email is email@example.com , please include me in the email chain.
I am going to judge based off the information you give me, meaning I need links, clarity on the argument you're making, as well as the impact. In fact, the impact is the most important part of the argument for me. I can not give you the benefit of the doubt on what the impact of your argument would be – I need to know why it is relevant to both you and the case you're making.
In the words of the wise Rob Glass, 'Debate is for debaters' – I'll evaluate what is established in the round. I can't stress that enough. That is why it is so important that you emphasize the impact and argument that you are making, reading two cases that lightly brush past each other isn't good enough. I love chaos, so I want clash.
If you have questions on specific arguments being run, please ask me before the round. If you have arguments and impacts that outweigh your opponent, feel free to run it. I'm not opposed to arguments on T, K, whatever it may be. There are good rounds and arguments to be found within all of them.
To win my vote on the ballot–I will vote on whoever wins the debate, not whoever repeats their case. I want to knowwhy you won andwhy their case does not achieve your ends better. I value evidence and impact over framework, but this does not mean that you can neglect framework–they all need to tie together. Please be respectful of your opponent and the round.
1 - k
2 - larp, theory, trix
3 - phil
4 - everything else
I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.
If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.
When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.
I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.
In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.
LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.
I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score.
In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.
I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.
I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.
After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:
Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.
Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.
I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.
Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.
Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.
I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.
I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)
Some other random items that you might be looking for:
I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.
When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant
I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.
Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.
I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5
If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.
I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.
Email for chain is: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next.
In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.
My name is Laura Martin. I have been a teacher for roughly 10 years. I have judged prose and world schools debate previously.
For the debaters:
- please no spreading. I will not understand what argument is being made.
- Please use evidence. A claim has no backing without it.
For the speakers:
- make sure you speak clear and to where I can hear you
- use your space (HI,DI,DUO,DUET)
- Be aware of your time
- I enjoy a entertaining and enlightening speech
I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery.
In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon.
Contentions must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to distinguish the argument / claim.
I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present.
Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic.
I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible.
I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important.
Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.
Any other questions may be asked in the room.
I am a traditional judge. Value & Citeria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.
L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.
I am an opponent of speed.
I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: email@example.com
4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:
Comments for *the debater*
"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.
New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."
RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."
If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.
I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)
Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.
Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.
MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:
I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.
Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)
General debate paradigm:
*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*
1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.
2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.
3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.
4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.
5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.
6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.
1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.
2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.
3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.
1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.
2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.
3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.
4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.
5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.
PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.
HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.
PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:
I judge based on the ballot criteria.
I like to see binder craft in POI.
I like a good teaser with lots of energy.
I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.
I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.
I like a good AGD.
Restate topic verbatim.
Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.
Three main points preferred.
I like at least 2 sources per main point.
Do not get tangential.
Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.
STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)
I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.
please no spreading
I was a LD debater in high school and I currently debate in college. I primarily did progressive debate so Im well versed in different debate styles and arguments. This also means I wouldn't recommend running anything you don't understand well. I mainly look for big picture debate which means weighing and voters are appreciated. Speed is fine. I don't like frivolous theory but will buy it if argued correctly. If possible please have your case already flowed before you enter the room. I don't really like card readers, like obviously when needed but not every speech. There's value in analytical arguments. Don't be rude to one another, have fun!
Judged speech and debate for 7 years now (since 2015).
CX & PF: -Don’t spread too much (I can follow spread just not throughout the entire speech)
-I prefer flex prep: The round continues throughout prep time. I give you the opportunity to ask your opponents verification questions during your OWN prep-time.
-I’m normally a Lincoln Douglass judge so big argument is essential. You can do line-by-line approach, just tie it back to your main arguments.
-You don’t have to ask judge ready, because.... I am. You can say “is everyone ready?” *look at your opponents* Cool? Start.
-Try to be civil
LD: -Don’t spread too much (I can follow spread just not throughout the entire speech)
-Be very clear on Value, Standard, C1, C2, etc.
-I prefer flex prep: The round continues throughout prep time. I give you the opportunity to ask your opponents verification questions during your OWN prep-time.
-You don’t have to ask judge ready, because.... I am. You can say “is everyone ready?” *look at your opponents* Cool? Start.
-Try to be civil.
I am a new judge, and I don't have enough experience to write out every circumstance, but here is what I would like to see:
Warrant your arguments - make sure to elaborate and make it as clear as possible why your evidence in each contention sustains your value, and/or your warrant on your opponent's evidence.
Speed - I am new to judging LD and I won't be able to keep up if you spread - spell things out for me, make me feel what you are debating for.
Signpost - feel free to take a reasonable amount of time before you speak to outline what you are going over - it will allow me to take better notes.
Crystallization - make it very clear why I ought to vote for you. This shouldn't be complicated theory, just simple ballots, explain why you are the winner, why your opponent is not.
PF: Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.
Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.
LD: Old school traditional, I like framework debates. NO SPREADING AT ALL, moderate speed is good. I don't understand progressive debates and stuff like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.
- NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL.
Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.
PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.
Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.
-Do not ask me about speaks, I will deduct a point if you do.
-Any questions about anything, please ask me.
-I am VERY chill, I'm not super hardcore or anything.
-I try my best to give feedback as much as possible after LD/PF rounds, I will only disclose if I have a clear winner at the end of the round.
-Just have fun please; y'all get so serious and tensed up, just relax and enjoy the moment.
Hi, I'm Zarik (he/him). You can call me Zarik, ZT, Tao, judge, or any combination of these names. I would like to be on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Background: Currently a senior LD Debater at Bridgeland High School (probably done debating at this point lol). 5th at 2022 6A UIL State, qualified to TFA State x3, Doubles at TFA State 2022.
I was a heavy on LARP and Phil as a debater, so take that information if you will.
LARP - 1
Theory - 1
Phil - 2 (Depends on type)
K - 2 (Depends on type)
Tricks - 5 (or strike me tbh)
I will pretty much vote on every arg if it is cohesively developed and I am able to explain back to you the claim, warrant, and impact in my RFD. (except if the arg is obviously morally reprehensible e.g. sexism, racism, etc.)
LBL > Long Overviews
Tech > Truth (but I think both are important)
Flex prep is cool; prep stops when you finish compiling the doc.
My judging philosophy is to be as non-interventionist as possible; people spend a lot of time prepping for this activity and you deserve the right to read whatever arguments that you want. That being said, I am a very expressive person, so if your argument does not make sense, I will probably make a face at you.
LARP - Pretty self-explanatory; you can run pretty much anything (plans, cp's, 7 minutes of case turns, disads, etc.). If you are aff PLEASE extend solvency or I will negate on presumption. Also, PLEASE collapse in the 1AR/2NR. I do not want to hear 5 different extinction scenarios that are all really underdeveloped in your rebuttal speeches. 0% risk is a thing.
1-3 Condo is probably good for neg flex; anything else is probably sketchy.
Functional and Textual Competition in the CP is probably good, but I will vote on PICS and Consult CP's etc. unless the aff wins abuse in the shell.
There needs to be an justification for judge kick (can be like 5 sec) if you want me to kick the offs for you; otherwise just spend the time kicking them yourself.
Comparative Worlds over Truth Testing (really easy to be convinced otherwise)
Theory - Fine with any theory; the more frivolous the arg then the lower threshold that I have for responses, but I will still vote on it UNLESS it pertains to the appearance/properties of the other person (e.g. water bottle and shoe theory is absolute b.s.). PLEASE extend paradigm issues.
Defaults (Please don't make me use them):
DTA > DTD (Unless it's T)
Competing Interps > Reasonability
No RVIs on shells
Content > Form
Text > Spirit
Topicality - I actually really enjoy topicality debates, including Nebel and Leslie, if they are done well (which is find is pretty rare, even for myself). Just contextualize why you win semantics>pragmatics or vice versa/both and the warrants for T "a" or bare plurals and if you do it well, you will probably get good speaks.
Phil - Fine with mostly everything if explained well; I pretty much only read Kant on aff LOL. If it's kind of a benign philosophy, it's probably good to have in the case to me whether is deon v consequentialist and how impacts are weighed under the framing. Syllogism > Independent Justifications. If you are reading util, PLEASE stop reading the Moen evidence it says a bunch of nothing and just switch to the Blum evidence.
Kritiks - I have a good understanding of Set Col, Afro-Pess (I will not vote on non-black Afro-Pess), Baudrillard, Pyscho (Lacan), and Foucalt/Agamben. I have a base level understanding of Empire, Queer-Pess, Asian Melancholy, Adorno, and Deleuze. If you are reading other authors/topics, you either 1) probably shouldn't read it because I might not understand it, or 2) explain it really well to me.
K Tricks (root cause, alt solves case) are cool, Floating PIKs are probably abusive but the other side should either run theory or ask for it in CX.
Tricks - Please delineate them and not hide them in a paragraph; that's not cool for me nor your opponent. If you're winning on tricks you're probably getting low speaks unless it's actually developed really well in your first speech and I've never seen that trick before.
Turns to tricks under truth testing is actually really cool if you pull it off you'll get good speaks.
My main preference is no spreading.
Updated -Nov. 2021
Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS
I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity). My coaching style is focused on narrative building. As a debater I mainly relied on clean line by line extensions and sought out ways to sever my opponents' links. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. Big Picture, traditional impact calculus is preferred, but I am open to more progressive approaches to debate. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.5. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. More in depth explanations provided below.
Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant.
I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. "Framework" in PF is not necessary and I think it takes away time that can make arguments more substantive. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links. It's lazy, for example, to run a Cap K shell, and then assume I will extend the offense just because I am familiar with the argument. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. Too many rounds would an team ask for a card, and it ends up not being paramount in the round. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.
I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.
I'm used to high speeds in LD rounds, I'm usually annoyed when you stumble or don't articulate while spreading. I think if you choose to spread, then you should be good at it, so I will not say "clear" or "slow" if I can't understand you. I will just not flow your arguments. You are welcome to send me speech docs (email@example.com) but I won't fill in gaps in my flows after the fact. This is unfair for debaters who are able to convey themselves clearly on the flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing. I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because there is not enough substance in theory debates. If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I am likely to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are have very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.
I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions. I don't like to vote on Topicality because its usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.
I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.
I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.
- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.
- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.
- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.
- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.