Annual Tournament of Hearts at Hallsville High
2023 — Hallsville High School, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round I have always encouraged signposting, it ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go and this could work against you. Take control of the round do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on, for the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear then I probably won't be voting on this in the round.
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you are advocating for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing, both are good just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.
I don't mind these but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why is the CP competitive compared to the AFF. There are lots of ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time if any at all with the literature so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which as a NEG Strat in my rounds is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it, but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through, or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.
Realistically I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.
Last, I WILL NOT INTERFERE. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence, and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round and for me clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.
Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill.
I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.
Again this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.
I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief.
Please tell me when and where I will be voting to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim it could win you the round!
I do not have a specific paradigm that I adhere to. I prefer the competitors to assume that I am green to the resolution and they are trying to educate me on the topic at hand. An informative, factual debate is preferred - philosophy optional. It is imperative that your value and criterion are strong and your evidence is supported by that and vice versa.
I would consider myself a traditional-style LD judge. Argumentation on Value, Criterion, I will judge hard on those. The team that shows me the strongest arguments will get my vote. I also look at the best speaker—the one that gives me good eye contact, tone, etc.
For other events, the best speaker will typically get my vote as long as they follow the criteria for said event.
I did speech and debate all four years of high school and when to state. Judged for local meets UIL speech and debate. As well as at the district level for LD, exempt and poetry.
email is email@example.com - Please put me on the email chain
I debated in LD and Policy for 4 years all through High school, and I am currently doing NPDA at college. I mainly ran LARP in high school because I never had the opportunity to do other debate types. Towards the end of junior year I started debating K's, specifically Baudrillard. In college I mainly do K debate with mostly proximal kritiks such as Psychoanalysis and identity K's. as for my Paradigm, I like all arguments but it will take a lot of work to win my ballot off trix. I evaluate Tech over truth, and if an argument is dropped then I will assume it is true regardless of what it is. Speed is fine, as long as it's coherent. Language doesn't bother me, and the only things I will auto drop a debater on is violence in round and hate speech (basically dont say a slur - Duh - ). I believe in cross checks and I will flow a gut check if someone forgets to ask about the status of a K, CP, or T/Theory shell. - I want the arguments extended and I like to see clash in the round. T and Theory are fine - I just need a clear violation with good standards - I will vote on RVI's in so far as they make sense - If you blip an RVI I'll simply ignore it. Friv theory is fun and all, and I will vote on it so long as you don't run like 9 different shells and blip all of them. Lastly, When I debate K's, I read the literature and understand it fully before taking into a round and I expect the same from you. If you can't answer an attack on your argument because you don't know the literature, then you should probably run something else.
Debate is inherently an ivory tower echo chamber where nothing gets done in the real world. I think that the only real impacts there are in the rounds are the words you speak and how you treat your opponents. For this reason I will vote for an IVI so long as there is a real reason for it being brought up (racial slurs, hate speech, etc.) I absolutely love philosophy and I will happily listen to anything brought into the round. I will not do any intervention in the round, and if I hear a misreading of an author that I know of I will let you know after the round but I won't drop you for it. That being said, I will laugh if your opponent clowns you for not knowing the argument. I am not a judge that can't leave my personal feelings at the door, and I will absolutely vote on something I don't agree with.
Something I feel important to mention is my allegory of chess for debate. Trying to set up checkmate is the goal of the endgame. Just as important is your opening, mid-game, and your board awareness. Even if you have a super sick pawn setup, a single blunder can lose you the game. Similarly, if you have your sick K with tons of evidence, solid links, and really good framing, I will happily throw it out the window if you don't answer the Impact turn or the perm. The best Cap K in the world can lose to 8 minutes of "Cap Good" as well as the USSR and Cambodia genocide case turn on the alternative. What is more important than prep, speed, and speaking ability is your strategy in the round.
We do debate for no other reason than to have a good time. I enjoy it and I like to judge, so lets just have a good time.
Attached is the paradigm for my coach Joseph Provencher, and I think it sums up how I feel quite well.
The allegory of the cornbread:
Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.
- P.S. I Silence Kritiks are an uphill battle in front of me. You need to be seriously ahead in the framing game to win that.
I weigh the value of communication highly in the round. Clear speaking with an organized presentation of value/criterion and organization of attacks. Do not be rude to your opponent, but believe in what you are trying to argue. Speed without clear communication will not earn points with me.
I consider myself a tabula rasa because I am open to hearing most arguments and try to stay open-minded. I usually vote and weigh heavily based on traditional stock issues but I expect both sides to be very convincing persuasive speakers. Be polite and professional to each other, especially during cx. I will time flashing evidence. If you use a computer, please do not let it be distracting to your speaking.
I do not like speed. I feel gasping and spreading to the point of lacking proper communication leads to significant holes in my flow and lack of clash and resolution of important issues. I also time roadmaps as I feel debaters are abusing this and providing speeches instead of true roadmaps. I am also the official timekeeper. If you prefer to use a timer as well, please do not say "starting time now" as I am the one that officially starts it.
If you need to reach out, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Important things in no important order. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1. I did CX for 4 years, I went to state UIL for 4 years, and I competed in NSDA qualifiers for CX. I was an octafinalist my sophomore year. I now do parliamentary debate in college, currently as a sophomore.
2. When it comes to breadth or depth, I think the debate needs to shift. Neg should throw a breadth of arguments at aff, but then collapse, either in the block or after the block, and give an in-depth reason to vote neg. This isn't to say I won't vote a one-off K or anything like that, run what you need to win.
3. Tech over truth.
4. I'm a tab judge. I will vote on anything and want to hear all kinds of arguments made.
5. I'm going to rate all of the arguments on a scale of 1-5, 1 being I hate, 5 being I love.
Theory is 5 because I love theory and if there's a legitimate reason to run it (condo bad, pics bad, k bad, etc.), it's a great way to have a meta debate, which can alleviate burnout on a single topic. On theory, standards are key, as well as voters. Your theory doesn't mean anything if you don't say why it means something.
Kritiks are a 5 because I love kritiks of all kinds and think they are a great way to reshape the debate. I will say that, for the purpose of the debate, I am not familiar with your K literature, even if it's cap. Explain it to me so that I understand what you're critiquing, why it's bad, and what the alt does as well as how it solves. Framing also makes K debates easier to weigh.
Topicality is 3 because I will vote on it and default to competing interpretations, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to reasonability. If aff can say why reasonability is good and then can win the we meet, the rest of the T is meaningless because aff meets. Don't lose that and I like T as much as theory. Also, you need voters. "Reasons to prefer" is not the equivalent of standards and voters.
Counterplans are a 4 because they're great, but I just never ran them as a debater. Go for it, I think they're fun arguments, but obviously have net benefits, either through DA's or K's.
K Affs are a 4 because they are an interesting way to change aff's job, but you need to give me a good reason to either reject the topic or at least reject the actor, idea, etc. On T, simply saying it's not a voter won't protect your K aff if you can't tell me why you being topical is less important than your advocacy.
Lastly, DA is 3 because it's a necessary part of debate, but needs more than uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. Either you need to turn the case, make the aff not solve (so there's no affirmative offense), use impact framing to make your impacts weigh more than aff, or couple it with a CP. Impact framing is key, because dehumanization versus nuclear extinction doesn't matter if I'm not told which one is worse. Absent any evaluation, I have to intervene to determine which I think is worse.
6. On flowing, I'm adequately good. I think speed is bad for debate personally, and it will show in your speaker points if you use high speed through analysis and analytics, but when it comes to cards, give me an easy tagline, and go as fast as you want. If you need specific warrants in cards flowed, slow down for those as well.
7. The job of the affirmative is to propose a plan or advocacy that either proves the topic or frames why rejecting it is important is better than the status quo/neg cp or alt. The job of the neg is to prove the status quo/cp or alt is better than the affirmative advocacy or plan. This applies to theory and T in the sense that if you prove how they access the topic or utilize an argument is worse for the debate space going forward, it still weighs.
8. I'd prefer to be on the email chain if one is created, but I'm not going to ask y'all to add me.
If you have any questions about the paradigm, ask me in the room.
I would consider myself a fairly TAB judge. I'm usually pretty go with the flow... (haha see what I did there) :) But if you have any questions about my paradigm in specific, then feel free to ask. I don't tolerate any blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any bigotry in my rounds (I will vote you down). Make sure everyone carries themselves in an ethical manner and is respectful of each other in the round. Debate is about communication and education so make sure you can articulate every part of the case and you understand what you're talking about. I don't flow CX so don't make arguments to me during the cross period because I will not write it down. I'm good with spreading but would prefer a copy of the document if you do so.
2022-23 Policy Topic
I wouldn't consider myself the most educated on this topic, however, that doesn't mean I'm uncomfortable with kritikal language in the debate space. Make sure you communicate every part of every argument, signposting is a great skill to have!
- Topicality/Theory: I rate theory and topicality pretty high on my flow unless the debaters communicate how and why I shouldn't. If you don't read all parts to a T-shell that includes (The definition, the violation, and standards and voters) then I won't consider it a real argument. Please don't be abusive and not read standards and voters in the initial shell, I'll consider and half-made argument. But you're more than welcome to expand on them in any speech.
- DA's/ADV's: I rate these arguments pretty high as well. Make sure they have all the components to them. Framing can heavily affect how I weigh these arguments so make sure you can articulate why the impacts of your advantages and disadvantages outweigh.
- CP's/Kritiks: I rate these arguments as high as any other. Make sure you can weigh the counter advocacy/alternative against the plan. Framing is a key player here for me so make sure both sides of the debate give be a ROB: Roll of the ballot and a framing mechanism to weigh the aff vs. neg.
- Framing: I'm cool with all framing, but don't just run util good and not explain how it adds to the debate space. UTIL is my least favorite framing so make sure you have a lot in terms of explanation on the flow for reasoning as to why I should vote for it. Anyways make sure you're framing adds to the debate and doesn't just take up time especially if you and your opponent agree on how the round should be framed.
LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.
CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.
I competed in Lincoln Douglas for three years in high school and I have been judging since August 2019. I am a super traditional judge. I will vote in favor of the side that presents the arguments in the most logical and sound fashion. I am not a fan of spreading or speed reading in Lincoln Douglas, I prefer a more elegant and persuasive tone to the round. Impacting and clashing are two key components that I look for in a debate round.