38th Annual Stanford Invitational
2024 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Public Forum - Open, TOC Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
TLDR: Do whatever u want I'll try my best not to intervene.
Add me to the chain and send docs: email@example.com
I debated 4 years at Flower Mound
qualled for toc x2
I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast
Phil/ Framing: I default util but feel free to run something else if u want. I'm familiar with kant, struc vio, and sentimentalism. If ur reading something else thats not intuitive slow down a bit and overexplain.
T/Theory: Went for this a lot, its pretty fun to judge. I default competing interps, yes rvis, drop the debater, normsetting > In round abuse. Chill with friv theory. I generally think disclosure/round reports is true and paraphrasing bad but I def wont hack for them.
Ks: I never rlly ran these args but I've hit them—T framework is a godsend. If u run them i'm almost assuredly not familiar with your lit. Err on the side of overexplaining it to me like I'm a 5 year old. Not a fan of alts that do essentially nothing. Complex K debates are where I trust myself the least in making the right decision.
Tricks: Feel free to run. Idk why this needs to be said but if ur just gonna dump a bunch a paradoxes u need to read truth testing. I rlly like eval after, indexicals, and theory tricks.
Presumption: If there's no offense at end of round, I default presumption goes to the team that lost the flip.
Feel free to post round me.
If you have any questions ask me before the round.
Speaker Points: I give some pretty mid speaks based on strategic decisions you make so don't go for everything.
I'll usually start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.
=============================READ BELOW IF IN PF(Congress in under PF paradigm)================
I am a "flay" judge when it comes to PF debate. I am aware of all debate terminologies and jargon
If you're in Novice/JV
I'm a pretty standard flow or "flay" judge. Here's what you should do in each speech
constructive: read it; emphasize key points, clarity is key here; no super spreading
first rebuttal: refute the opponent's case thoroughly, brownie points for rhetoric
second rebuttal: refute opponent's rebuttal(aka frontlining) + refute their true case
summaries: explain the arguments that I should vote on in the round, explain why you win them, and weigh impacts. don't try to recap all of your arguments here — pick your strongest one and go for that(collapsing)
final focus: summary but 2 minutes
if thou dost not signpost, on the ballot i will probably roast. please tell me which argument you're on when you start talking about it. it makes my job so much easier.
please ask me any questions you have about debate!
general stuff you should probably read if you're competing in varsity
- set up an email chain before the round and add firstname.lastname@example.org
- concessions during crossfire are binding in the round so long as it's brought up by the other team in a speech.
- i evaluate the round in the following order: all weighing>link-level debate>evidence/warrant debate
- weighing is important but not if done wrong. nuke war magnitude weighing doesn't matter if there are 20 pieces of terminal defense telling me why it never happens. go for weighing when it makes sense, not just because your coach told you to.
- any speed is fine so long as you're not incoherent. if i need a doc to understand your speech, i will not vote for you. Here speak like I am a lay judge.
- postround me, it makes me a better judge.
- if you want me to vote on an argument it needs a proper extension: recap the UQ, link chain, and impact.
evidence ethics are atrocious here. to encourage you to be better:
+0.5 speaks if both sides set up an email chain before the round and use it to call for cards
+0.5 speaks if both sides send each other (and me) all case evidence after reading constructive
- if you've ever debated on nats circuit, i much prefer that style of debate.
- make me audibly laugh = 29.5(or higher if you debate well)
- making opponent laugh = 30
- disrespectful behavior = 25.
- bigoted/exclusionary behavior = as low as I can go + L.
- long, not well answers in cross will drop your speaks significantly. concision = productive crossfires.
Overall, I am looking for a respectful, competitive, and lowkey chill round.
Hi congressmen and congresswoman(debaters),
I rank each bill separately and then rank speakers based on cumulative rankings on each bill. If the chamber does 3 bills with base 2, I will find some equitable way to rank the round. I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and delivery in that order.
Some notes on how to score well for round integration:
- REFUTE-- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
- EXTEND-- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
- WEIGHING-- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability
Some notes on content:
- ARGUMENTS-- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
- EVIDENCE-- Give strong quantifications wherever possible.Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
- PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.
Some notes on delivery:
- INTROS-- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater),
- PADS-- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but probably won't drop you if you use one. Legal pads are preferred.
- I LOVE RHETORIC, USE IT!
Email chain: email@example.com
tech only, no truth.
I only give less than 29.9 if you give me a reason to
Obviously, I will tank if you are disrespectful -- including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- just be a good person please.
and I only give 30 if you dedicate the debate to Sid Thandassery before constructive.
default: DTD, CIs, norm-setting, fairness > edu, no RVIs
but it doesn't matter, make any arguments, I don't hack (unless you disclose full-text, then good luck)
extend, probably nothing is sticky.
collapse, signpost, be organized
weigh and meta-weigh
please run tricks in PF.
I read phil and I like it, but don't be too crazy.
I have no problem with them, I'm just not familiar with many Ks. Run whatever you want, but if you want me to vote right, I can prolly follow Cap, Set Col, most Pess Ks, and maybe Psycho.
Speaks are based on strategy.
Bonus if you mention Sid Thandassery, any ex-Flower Mound debater, or bring me caffeine.
Basically same arg prefs as PF
I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.
- PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
- if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
- tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
- My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!
Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do
(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette
if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time
POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it
Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.
don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho
don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check
best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round
clash can GO a long way in this event
For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.
gestures are neato, but don't go bananas
witty banter is a plus
I only judge congress in person not online
NEVER wants to Parli a round
if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person
tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth
I better see clash
if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!
When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions
I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links
I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech
I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!
Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision
FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)
Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns
Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it
I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross
When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis
^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T
I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall
Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful
Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"
take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc
Tech > Truth (most of the time)
links can make or break you
value/criterion - cool
stock issues - cool
K - cool
LARP - cool
Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike
never assume I know the literature you're referencing
I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything
look at LD above
PLZ send a doc
I expect to see clash
no speed, this needs to be conversational
don't paraphrase evidence/sources
STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round
not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1
^ don't take on too many - it kills time
don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated
the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed
as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration
Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues
I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.
May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!