Tabroom.com

Cedar Park High School Online TFA

2023 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

World Schools Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jessica Jewel Apodaca-Burks Hire

Demetria Jones LV Hightower High School

Thulani Khumalo Hire

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 10:25 AM CDT

This is my paradigm; I will explain how I approach judging in a FAQ format. Hopefully, it's clear. If you have any questions, email me: khumalothulani.r@gmail.com

What is my experience level?

Here are my judging qualifications:

2022: Implicit Bias - Project Implicit, USA

2022: Cultural Competency course - National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Adjudicating Speech and Debate – National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Protecting Students from Abuse - US Centre for Safesport, USA

You can find my certificates here (Google Drive):

I have been judging for two years now, since 2022, and have judged about 22 tournaments (I have no idea how many flights but probably hundreds lol). I have experience in most formats: LD, PF, WSD, BP, AP, Congress, SPAR, Impromptu, Policy, and even the rare ones like Big Questions and Extemporaneous. I have some experience in oratory speeches like DUO. Yes and many rare debates (for example, one time I did a radio debate where the speakers were performing as radio announcers, giving local news, sports, etc, with 1950-type voices-- it was a pretty cool experience :)).

2 2. What are my preferences as they relate to your rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language?

I pretty much understand complex English words. Having studied engineering in college, it's pretty much a given that I understand most of the stuff and words that may be deemed complicated. However, debate is an Art of Convincing and Converting, so don't try to use too much jargon like a lawyer (or a surgeon lol), as it might end up confusing your opponents and me.

Rate of Delivery: Any delivery pacing is welcome. Generally, I prefer a medium pace; a slow pace is okay, too, if you can explain your contentions adequately in the given time. Medium or conversational pacing gets the point across really well. When it comes to fast pace, don't speak in a monotonous way like you are reading..(approach your speech as if you are trying to convince me to follow your case), and don't rush too much: take your time; it's your moment, be free. I don't have any difficulties understanding fast-paced deliveries; however, during the speech, you must factor in the time for me to process the information you say. But remember, it is not only me; your opponents must also understand what you are saying. This means, you really don't need to have too many contentions to be convincing (Quality over quantity).

33. How do I take notes during the round?

I am a writer, and there is no stopping my pen. First, you have to know that during your contentions, I basically write down all your points, examples, and details. I keep my notes detailed so that it's easy to recall and give a balanced assessment. However, I highlight your major contentions so that I get an appreciation of your overall message. This is important in that, usually during questioning, there usually are nuanced questions coming from the other side relating to minor arguments, such as an example that was not stressed upon. Picking all that up is important so that I don’t forget or get surprised when someone asks a question on a minor point.

4. Do I value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to me?

Arguments and style are both important to me. Generally, I give Arguments 70% and style 30%. When I rate every debate, there is an argumentative section and a performative section that is essentially style and delivery. For me to give you the round, you have to provide me with convincing and logical arguments supported by examples/exhibitions (argument). Then there is style: After every debate, I always emphasise how important a structured speech is. There must be a flow to your case. Start by saying something out of the box to raise my interest (Give an exciting hook, show me how smart you are); after you introduce the topic, state your major contentions, then explain them, giving evidence. Don’t give too much proof because you need time to explain to me, as if I am a layman, what it all means and the impacts of an action. Then, as you conclude, give a summary (remind me of the journey of the speech). This delivery style is tried and tested, However, if you think you have your own style that will convince me, go for it. You can trust me when I say to you that I pay a lot of attention to detail.

45. What are the specific criteria I consider when assessing a debate?

1. Clarity: outline your key contentions early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.

2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matters from the other side. Make strategic concessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are valid or essential to the debate and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.

3. Conclusions: When deciding on a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate regarding the strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanise each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.

4. Coherency. Make sure your delivery is coherent. The perk of writing stuff down is you can catch a lot of mistakes, so make sure everything tallies up.

56. If you have judged before, how would I describe the arguments I found most persuasive in previous debate rounds?

Essentially, the most compelling arguments are the most well-explained, and the impacts of those arguments are well-explained and logical. Try not to brush things off, manage your time wisely, and don’t come with a lot of contentions…3 or 4 are usually enough (depending on the debate format); explain well, give proofs, and give impacts.

67. What expectations do you have for debaters’ in-round conduct?

In the round, everyone is EQUAL, and everyone is free to express themselves. It’s a safe space for everyone. Be kind to one another, and that means no bullying or targeting of any sort.

78. Feedback. I will give verbal feedback if the tournament allows, disclosing who has won and why. I will also write feedback on Tabroom for every individual. My job is to make sure that you learn from the debate experience and take something positive.

89. Time: I prefer that the speakers have time clocks with them (this won't lose you marks, lol). I prefer the round to flow naturally without my continual interruption, interjecting here and there (for example, you: “Judge Ready?”— Me: “Ready”) if there is something to be said.

Cheers!

Elizabeth Lopez-Aguilar Hire None

Daniela Quiroga Irma Rangel YWLS None

Kishlaya Rastogi Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:43 AM CDT

Clements '22 | UT '26

4 years of PF, state and nats quals, etc etc.

put me on the chain: krastogi4444@gmail.com

TLDR: do what you want, have fun, be respectful. im pretty flow

any form of bigotry is entirely unacceptable and will immediately result in an L25.

Case

pretty straightforward do what you want
send case with cards before you speak
framing should be read here

Rebuttal

anything not responded to here is considered conceded
please send docs, especially if you're spreading or reading new offs

Summary

by far the most important speech
if you haven't started weighing already, definitely start doing it now
any voters in final must be in summary. if it's not here i dont care about it
extensions are more than just "extend x card/author/arg" i need claim-uniqueness-warrant-link-impact
defense is NOT sticky now that speeches are 3 minutes. that means defense must be re-extended in every speech that follows any offense

Final Focus

like above, if its not in summary, i dont care if its in the final. if its in the final but wasn't in summary, i don't care
please mirror summary in both content and order
weighing should have started earlier; the only new weighing i'll evaluate in FF is meta-weighing, which requires warranting as to why i should prefer one mech over another. it is NOT just yelling mechanisms at me

Extra

cross is binding so long as you bring it up in a speech
speed is fine as long as i have a doc. however, i will only flow if the speech is comprehensible; i will say clear once and if it doesn't get clearer i probably wont flow how you want.
i will not look at any evidence unless i am explicitly told to do so. poor evidence ethics will tank speaks but will not lose a round, unless that argument is made
i don't have much experience with progressive argumentation but i am happy to evaluate it. keep in mind i may not evaluate it how you want me to, so probably not a great idea to read 7 off
be nice to novices, you can beat them without being rude and condescending
i'll evaluate TKOs. If at any point in the round (post constructives) you think the opponent has NO routes to the ballot, the round will immediately end and you get a W30. However, if I think the opponent has any route to the ballot, you get an L25. High risk, high reward.

WSD

I try to appoint speaks as fairly as possible according to each category. However, if you are losing every argument, you will not win a round just because you had a better strategy. Thus, I will retroactively adjust points as necessary.
the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to start at the latest in the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing in any of them, i will not evaluate it

I used to have a longer paradigm but it was deleted. feel free to ask if you have any questions

Raiyan Shaik Hire

Rodrigo Trujillo Hire

Kris Wright Irma Rangel YWLS

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Login to Tabroom

Cedar Park High School Online TFA

2023 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

World Schools Debate Paradigm List

Judges