UNT John S Gossett Memorial High School Tournament
2022 — Denton, TX/US
Varsity Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
***For all of the lifetime of this page, this page will be a work in progress (W.I.P)***
**Up to date for Flower Mound Swing tournament on 01/27-28, still subject to change through the event**
Some background about me:
I am Hebron Alumni, currently 20 years old, and a sophomore/junior at UNT, studying computer science. Some things I like are video games, watching k-dramas, listening to k-pop, and most of all spending time with friends. I have officially debated in NCX, NPF, and VPF. But I have learned and practiced all forms of speech and debate. I never got a chance to go to state or TOC, due to unfortunate circumstances. I have always enjoyed debating, because of the freedom it gave me, to talk about the real world, without any censorship from adults. With that being said, I appreciate those who truly give their best to their event.
If you can tell me who my bias is, then I will give you the win ;)*its a joke, but I will up ur speaks If u get it right
Context to Debate:
Debate is not mathematics. The round does not exist as a confined 3-dimensional space with certain laws of conservation. Debate is a form of conversation where members of the discussion are presenting their point of view and trying to persuade the listener to agree or join their side. With that being said, I expect that everyone in the round understands, that I am also a human being like everyone, and am prone to making a mistake. I will try my 110% to be objective in the round, so don't dismiss what I have said. You might not like it, and think I am wrong, but understand that all decisions made are still subjective to what made sense in my brain. I have been in your shoes, so please be patient and understanding with me, and we will have a great time.
*****Disregard of the rules of ethics and mannerism in a round is an immediate loss, I Do Not Care!*****
I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA, which differ between each event, if there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.
I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA. I uphold congress to the same integrity as CX, LD, and PF. If there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.
CX, LD, PF:
(*For Online Tournaments*)
I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the call. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.
-->see the rest of the paradigms under the in-person section<--
(*For in-person tournaments*)
I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the room. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.
During the round:
All of Crossfire will not be noted down on the flow, I will probably listen to the crossfire to make sure that it is still civil, and noted down any points that might affect speaker points. A reminder: Crossfire is for you to ask questions and clarify anything in the round with opponents. Anything that is brought up and you want me to vote off it, you must bring it up in your following speech.
Progressive Arguments (aka disad, theory, k):
I am fine with any progressive argument except Disclosure Theory. PF is not CX, there is no reason to run such an argument. If you still feel like running it, I will not even consider it part of the round when voting, if I didn't buy the reasoning or analysis. Further, if you run a progressive argument without changing it to be at the VPF level, and I don't understand, I simply won't vote off of it
Overview and Under view:
I encourage having it, so I can have some parameters to vote off of, but I will not take it under consideration if it has not been carried throughout the entire round, in each speech (except rebuttal, ask before the round for more details).
I expect that the contention is readable in 4 minutes without having to spread. So here is your fair warning, DO NOT SPREAD, if I can't follow you at your speed, I will either stop flowing or only write what I hear. This will probably hurt you. So be careful. I want clear signposting when you transition from Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and Impact.
For the first speaking team, I expect to hear a full frontal attack on the opponent's case. You can preemptively defend your case, but I will On the other hand, I expect the second-speaking team to attack and defend their case in the 4 min. Be sure to warrant analysis. I love to hear about turns on links and impacts, which creates ground for the clash needed in a debate round.
NO NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE SECOND-SPEAKING TEAM! I expect to hear a summary of the round, with collapsing. Be sure to have Impact calculus or weighing.
Give me voters. Why should I vote for you? NO NEW EVIDENCE!
I am not progressive in speaking. Don't spread, speak with emphasis on tags, speak clearly and loudly, and if you can make me laugh, you get higher speaks.
After the Round:
I plan to disclose if I can come up with RFD within 5 minutes
I'm mainly a policy stock issues judge and to me the team that can follow that the best/ most wins. I do listen to everything but I don't really like K's. If your K as an alt that is something other than reject the aff than I'll weigh it more than the typical reject the aff alt.
K affs: Personally as a general rule if your aff calls for direct action I'll like it way more than the the whole "we should reevaluate our relationship with X"
Tl;Dr: I will listen to everything however if your K/ K Aff calls for use to just think about something or re-evaluate our relationship with X I will weigh it a lot less against other things.
I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps.
In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.
In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.
I am an overall parent judge.
I understand the event and want to see clear extensions of arguments and want to see clear impacts throughout all speeches. Don’t be over aggressive towards the other team in cross examination and speak clearly so I can understand your arguments to their full effect.
Email for the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
In Public Forum and Extemp: I value analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!
In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.
In DI, HI, DUO: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.
Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!
LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, T's, Piks, other random things.
I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).
PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.
Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask
Hello! I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.
I can't stand the K. Please don't run one.
Parli- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence.
LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.
I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.
To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.
The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.
Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.
I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two four year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.
If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.
I'm a parent judge. No spreading. I have a tabla rasa mindset. My opinions will not affect the round. Please explain complicated issues to me as if I do not understand.
As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.
For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.
For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.
I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School
My name is Jesse Reyna, I have five years of legislative debate experience and I’m on my second year of moot court at the University of North Texas.
Mainly I look for framework and a clearly laid out argument. Spreading is okay as long as it’s comprehensible to both me and your opponent.
Any specific questions you have can always be asked in-round.