Texas Middle School State Tournament
2023 — Houston, TX/US
LD/PF Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideContact Info
Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)
Pronouns: He/Him
Background (Updated For 2024-2025 Season)
I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.
I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI
*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.
Conflicts
Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS
Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI
TLDR: What I don't like
1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle
2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.
3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.
LD & CX Specific
DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)
This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:
[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward
[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address
[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.
[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.
Theory:
I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.
Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.
Kritiks & TFW/Topicality
K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean
K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L
Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.
*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place
**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.
Phil
I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.
Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).
Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.
Tricks (LD Specific)
I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.
[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low
[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue
[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is
[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.
[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).
Round Logistics
[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card
[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.
[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.
General Strategy:
I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.
Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.
If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament
If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking
If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed
If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect
Personal Belief:
I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.
Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571
Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)
World Schools Specific
A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens
B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs
C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.
Public Forum Specific
Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.
If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.
If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.
Speaking Events (Specific)
Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.
Congress Specific
Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)
I'm a PF debater at St. Agnes Academy.
I really love it when people make claims with evidence fully backing them
Presentation -
I can understand spreading, but I can tell the difference between spreading and complete gibberish, if you are going to spread, please make sure to annunciate your words.
I prefer you roadmap all of your speeches, not including the first speech. Try to reference your case and your opponent's case while attacking so I can easily flow all of your argument.
I flow cross, so make sure you ask impactful questions and reference the clashes in your speeches.
Preferences -
I won't vote for you if you do not convince me that your case is better than your opponents by attacking them.
I DISLIKE THEORY- If you argue an outlandish theory unrelated to the topic, I will not count that argument.
Hey! My name is Caleb, I am a current high school Interp-Competitor in Texas. I have been competing since the 6th Grade, and Speech and Debate is pretty much my entire life. I have competed in every speech event, and also Public Forum Debate. Here is what I look for in IE's, specifically.
Speech Events (IE):
The performance that displays the most character development is my main attention grabber. The push and pull of power and confidence within characters as the piece progresses is ever so important. For me, a piece that feels the realest and most authentic will always overpower a performance that is melodramatic or overdone. Moreover personally I love to see a hidden meaning or argument within your piece, something that the performer(s), is/are trying to bring attention to. Make use of the area, especially in middle school, and begin to get confident with understanding what your character would do in a certain situation, then making use of the space in that way. Most importantly however, everything you do needs to be for a reason. A sound effect in HI for no reason at all feels cheap, and underdeveloped to me. If a character is making a facial expression, I need to be able to understand WHY in that given moment. A purposeful performance is a captivating one!
*Prefences of Judging (From most prefered to least preferred)
- Humorous Interpretation
- Other Interpretation Events
- Platform Events
- Limited Preparation Events (Extemp, Impromptu, e.t.c)
- Public Forum Debate
You can always count on a ballot that is long enough to be performed as your next oratory.
Hey, I'm Ebenezer Appiah, I go by he/him/his pronouns and I competed for Alief Elsik School School from 2019-2023 where I had a couple of standout achievements World Schools wise.
TL;DR: I vote on the best remaining offensive material at the level at which it is proven. Typically this just means choosing the clash/material you are winning and using existing and (sufficient) warranting to access an impact that you can realistically weigh out your opponent with. If you prove your argument at the specific level at which you want it to operate ur chillin. I almost always auto-70 a speech that lacks terminal argument development so doing this will for sure raise speaks even if you lose the round.
Things that make my job hard:
- Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
- Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
- Not proving your arguments (I don't buy things in a vacuum - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they meet some burden(s) of proof)
In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this
In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)
Things that make my job easy:
- Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
- Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
- Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/ are more likely to occur in contrast to your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
- Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact level must concede the warrant level (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant level weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant level (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact level.
- Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round - doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge instruction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.
- General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. I must know why a claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.
A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but is necessary if the work isn't done in round
I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. As a competitor who spoke a bit quicker than what was typically the norm in WSD, I understand how an overbearing focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good debating. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. arg quality > rhetoric. ideally, the best speeches have all 3 but my pivot is more towards content and strategy.
Principled arguments are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that may have been well established but was poorly leveraged against other arguments. Another thing principle wise ~ if the principle full stops at proving moral benefit of the motion without prescribing the moral necessity of the motion, I’m probably not gonna buy it because that’s just a util principle in disguise. The principle needs to set a framework for morally evaluation and then explain why violating that framework produces moral injury.
All and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun!
If you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu
I am a former policy debater for Barbers Hill High School
I'm was flex debater so run whatever you want it's your round I just decide who win's (unless it's racist, sexist, ableist, etc.). Because like obviously
Skip down to the ld section for my pref thing but most of the policy stuff still applies
Overall having a fun debate experience is the ultimate goal so strive to do so, and good luck!
For email chains, my email is nbdebate06@gmail.com
If I feel as though you are stealing prep, I will warn you first and then penalize you if it continues. Please don't steal prep, it's pretty annoying.
IDC abt being post rounded I get it just don't be dumb abt it
Also speed, go as fast as you want just put me on the chain - When i say go as fast as you want just make it to where you are still clear odds are i'll understand you but i mean you'll probably sound better if you aren't mumbling every word in your speech I'll also say clear i doubt i'll need to but i will- Just maybe slow down a wee bit in rebuttals and online
Pref short cut --- (IK this prolly doesn't apply but just use this as you will:))
Policy ---1
K (cap/security)--- 1
K (identity)---2-3
K aff --- 2-3
K (pomo) --- 4-5
Phil & tricks --- lol
Don't make me intervene (i only forgot an 'e' bryce it wasn't horrible) in the round if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize or touch on it and loses anyways, why wouldn't I punish the 2AR for fumbling? and etc.
--- Online Debate
I'm fine with your camera being off when you speak just turn it on at the beginning.
Slow down a bit no need to run a dozen or so off
I would prefer we do email chain at all times but if it is imperative that we need to do file share then so be it this goes for in person too
T/FW
Explain to me what abuse has occurred or explain why I should vote against a non-t aff
I really like these debates i feel like the aff should be built around T/FW
I believe the aff should have really good impact turns to procedural fairness and topic education if you want to win my ballot on the aff in these rounds have good DA’s on T/FW
For the neg odds are they aren’t T so go for procedural fairness & topic education and why it matters so much.
I lean more neg when it comes to TVA’s so if you want to win a T/FW debate in front of me a TVA would be much appreciated
T
Try and have a definition contextual to the aff
Answer extra T or fx T because i'll vote on it if you drop it and have competing interps but i'm not going to do the work for you so call it out in the block
DA's
I love good disad debates but the thing I look for most in a debate is the link debate and the disad turns case. Don't be afraid to run generic disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it needs to have a turns case arg if you want to win the ballot because I feel like the turns case argument is really underrated.
Please have all parts of the DA it would really suck if you have no internal link :(
Have good uniqueness that's up to date
I don't know how strong the links are for IP but if there are string links please use them over generics
Counter plans
While case-specific counter plans are more interesting for me to listen to, I don't evaluate them more favorable than generic counter plans. Just contextualize your generic solvency evidence if you choose that route.
Don't assume I kick the CP (or anything for that matter) from the flow unless you instruct me to. My flow will look exactly how you tell me for it to look.
If you are running a PIC, be prepared for a theory debate and the perm debate. I don't default a certain way most of the time, but I think both of those arguments are important barriers for you to overcome if you want to win my ballot. I do however err aff when it comes to obscure pics of the aff because I feel like it’s just unfair and impossible to predict.
If I didn't cover anything feel free to ask me before the round! I don't have much to say, because I feel like CP's shouldn't really be controversial.
Also go to the theory section for how I look at that on CP's
K
Run'em
just paint a picture for me to understand what the world of the alt looks like
links of omissions/thesis links are cool just say how the alt changes it, i prefer you also have links descriptive to the aff and pull lines from there cards that's how you'll win me on the link debate.
Also don't be afraid to kick an alt and go for link turns case because if you're having alt solvency deficits your best way out of it is to just go for link turns case.
Also I know for novice rounds you probably won't be running Baudrillard but if you running high theory K just let me know what it is and what it means i more a traditional K judge(Cap, Security, AfroPess/Wilderson, Imperialism, And so on)
Please say why the alt solves the link their is never enough work done on this for most of the time.
Theory
I'll evaluate any flow you put on the page besides ASPEC/OSPEC unless it's to get a link to a DA but if it's something abscure that you are trying to win on i will audiby yawn at you
I lean aff on process cp's, consult cp's, 50 states, and multi actor fiat. I lean Neg on international fiat & condo
As I said above I think condo's not really a great argument but i mean if the neg his running like 8 conditional advocates Then i would have no problem giving an aff ballot if they don't fumble
Case
I'm always ready for a good case debate and I'm cool with any case turns etc.
I love case debate where the 2NR goes for a case turn, I feel like a case turn debate goes really underutilized it would be cool if we have a lot of offense on case to go for in the 2NR
But if you want to win my ballot easily you need to be doing internal link debate on the aff. If you win that odds are you’re getting my ballot.
Have new case defense or at least up to date stuff
In debate now i feel like we don't spend enough time on case like the 2nr only doing 30 seconds of it i get how if you are winning it you feel like you should go for more offense but i mean make sure you get to all the key points on the case flow
Misc.
I don't care if you cuss etc.
I start at 28.5 speaks and I'll go up or down depending on strategy, speaking, and argument development.
I have been told I am rude in debate and where I feel some of that is right I feel like some of it is misinterpreted let's just try to have a fun round where we don't get a heated round
Please be more than a debate robot I want people to engage in the activity and inject it with their personality unless you're boring then just stick to be a robot.
LD:
I don't necessarily like trad debate but i'm cool with wtv you run just
Most of the policy stuff from above still applies just do you tho
don't run tricks though because i'll most likely sit in the back laughing and then vote you down because i hate tricks, but they're funny
PF:
lol
Please just clash like it's one of the only things i care about and want in a PF debate
Also have good offense and defense
I really don't judge PF that often so just try and have judge instruction for the love of god (or wtv you believe in)
Email: Ccbezemek25@mail.strakejesuit.org
Prefs (Arguments)
Favorite - Policy or Larp and Religious arguments
Don’t likes - Dense Ks, Dense Frameworks, and Cap K
I won't vote on ad homs or unproven out of round violations
Overall, run what you want. I will evaluate what you tell me to (within reason).
Please do -
Weigh
Signpost
Speak Clearly
Extend arguments
Link arguments to framework
Explain arguments - presume I know nothing
Weighing (if you don’t give it to me it is very hard to make a decision) - (Ballot order is)
Theory, Framework (K, ROB, and ROJ go here), Case (In that order)
Magnitude (extinction) > every other argument (probability, K args, any other args besides theory) (If no weighing)
Concessions > Args in round (If you weigh your case first I will presume it first or explain why the concession doesn’t matter, but if I am left with a few concessions and a few arguments the concessions will probably influence the ballot) (Spin is still ok though)
No way to tell who wins I will vote Neg (Unless presumption and permissibility affirms)
Speed/Flowing
Send the doc - I may not look at it
I prefer to not look at doc and follow by ear
I will say clear/slow three times and stop flowing
I will flow whatever you say, but if I miss something and you bring it up later I will think it is new and won’t buy it.
I am a really slow flower (my wpm is like 60 so understand that I will miss stuff if you go too fast)
I think debate needs to be focused on how well you speak, so speed and clarity is important
Do nots -
Clip - You will either get an auto lose or terrible speaks
Say arguments that aren’t in your case that you say are/power tag (IE if you claim only 1% of all rocks can be mined, but the evidence says NASA is mining one percent then this is power tagged) (Latter if pointed out unless its egregious)
Bring up new args in late speeches - I won’t buy them, and your speaks will drop. Weighing is ok though
Don’t yell at the opponent in CX
Cuss - You get one cuss word after that I will give you a cap at 26 speaks.
Thoughts
I hate disclosure theory. I will vote on it, but I strongly dislike it.
Defense/I meets is sufficient on theory shells especially if multiple are read.
Tricks are ok, they will probably get you less speaks. I do dislike hidden indexicals or tricks in random tags though.
If someone does something that is bad, then it is their opponents job to explain why it is bad and what the judge should do.
CX is binding. If you lie in CX or dodge questions and bring it up later as a voting issue I will be very skeptical.
Overall, run what you want and I will try to judge it fairly. Presume that I know nothing about the topic or framework you are reading or I can’t evaluate it. If I can’t understand it, then I can’t vote for you.
If both sides agree to a separate activity to decide the round, then they can do that (like a chess game or something)
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
For PF - I have never judged this before. I will just judged off persuasion and argumentation. Being clear, weighing, and explaining will be important. Don’t presume I know the norms for pf like what evidence looks like, extending arguments, or theory.
Include me on the email chain
Gserickson27[The at symbol]mail.strakejesuit.org
I put the parenthesis so that no scrapers get my email
Just some info
Freshman at Strake Jesuit
did 2 yrs of MS debate
Do primarily NatCirc debate now\\
LD-
Pref Shortcuts
Theory-1
Trad-1
Phil-2/3
Simple Ks-2
Tricks-1
LARP-2
Complex Ks-2/3
Performance Ks-4 - Unless its Posadism, then 1 [This is just to troll my homie who lost to a Posadism K]
Identity Ks- 2
THIS GOES FOR EVERYTHING
- Tricks are not ableist, I will buy that arg if warranted well though
- Saying Eval bad (as in running eval is bad) is not the same as answering eval (if you want the guide, say IVI: Eval bad etc + Dont eval after x, eval after 2AR- what NSDA wants, makes every other speech waste of time)
- Friv is great, I love friv
- Debate good
- IVIs count as tricks, they are blips that can be blown up later
- i support new modes of argumentation, breaking a new Aff means you don’t have to disclose
- Dropped args=True
- Cant pick up a dropped arg (If you do policy, Ill make an exception IF the arg is picked back up in the Cs
- if the AFF is a resource allocation AFF [Asian Pivot, ban X bc it costs $$$, etc] then the NEG can legit just say CP: Give Y to X but don’t do the AFF, and the AFF’s job becomes harder——— so don’t run that
- the NC has to respond to the AC, just bc its called a constructive doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to frontline
- You can refer to me as chat (it will increase speaks)
- Debate well
- Generally being funny increases speaks
Speaks
- If you get below a 28, you are probably doing something wrong, and I’ve probably talked to your coach
- I eval 30 speak spike
- Idc if you spread, just send the doc
- Clearly signpost, and make clear crossappliations
- Refer to me as chat
- be funny
- if the debate is boring, I give lower speaks
General things:
- Be respectful to your opponent(s)
- I will NOT tolerate racism, homophobia, sexism, or xenophobia. Any form of offensive rhetoric will cost you the round.
- Any specific debate questions concerning my judging philosophy, just ask, and I will answer to the best of my ability :)
- At the end, somebody must win the round; my decision shouldn't determine your value as a debater or individual.
Hi, my name is YA-ME-A, I currently debate at Heights Highschool where I have had an active 4-year career which is unfortunately coming to a close. I started my career during the pandemic as an LD debater ("online debates were yuck!") in my sophomore year I studied a new format CX or Cross Examination, so I am familiar with both LD and CX formats.
As far as competitive success I have qualified for HUDL courthouse in both years of my career; I have competed in the TOC circuit and have had slight success. I have observed some highly competitive matches, while also practicing my RFD drafting skills.
When creating an email chain please add me: yamiaeverlin@gmail.com
Some things that I would like to see:
- A consistent story in both the affirmative and the negative; This means when presenting your case ensure that the arguments connect to one another and make sense. Trust your gut because you have worked hard to develop your case so just simply tell your story; the easier the story is to follow this does influence my decision.
- Clash: It is very entertaining to see debaters interacting with one another in a battle of passion; As I do say I would like to see passion but, I would also like debaters to keep in mind sportsmanship, because this is a learning environment for all. Debate is an offensive and defensive sport so don’t forget to attack and defend your position.
- Closing Summary; In the past I have found it helpful to reflect on the entirety of the case because this can allow my judge to fill in any holes that may have been missed. So, I would like to see debaters to summarize what had just occurred and why I should vote for them.
- Have FUN!!
Things that I do not want to see:
- Disrespect of your opponent; Everyone is here to learn and get better we all value debate and this is no place to discourage others.
- Spreading; You are not required to speak fast, speak clearly, and annunciate your wording to present a clear case.
Arguments that I prefer or are familiar with:
K’s Kirtiks – I have evaluated several Kirtiks listing a few (AFRO PESS, SET COL, etc.) So, I am familiar with some generic K’s but if presenting something I have never seen please be sure to explain very well.
T/T-Shells – T is cool, I just need to understand the abuse of the debater as well as present good standards and voters.
Arguments I am not familiar with:
Tricks – I have not been exposed to these and I would prefer if debaters stayed away from the usage of this.
LD:
I find value based arguments based on how things ought to be over policy to be most persuasive in LD debates, although policy as support can certainly be useful and demonstrative. Progressive argumentation is fine, and spreading is fine as long as it can still be understood. I expect the winning argument to be persuasive and effectively communicated, I should feel that I have been made to believe in what is being said and why you should win. If I need your case in writing to follow it, it won't be as persuasive and will be judged accordingly. I expect the debaters to set the terms, rules and ultimately the outcome of the debate based on what is said, not left unsaid. I won't connect the dots for your arguments, explain it me. I'm a huge fan of philosophical arguments setting up for clash. I'm familiar with a variety of K's and KvK's are great. I enjoy a debate that both an expert and a lay-judge can identify a winner. As far as speakers, I am looking for well paced delivery, sign posts, strong framing and weighing being presented effectively to tell me why you will win.
General prefs
1 Value Framework/Phil
2 Policy/ K's
3 Theory
4 Tricks
PF: I'd really prefer to see pf done the way it was intended. In other words pure policy and impact weighing without utilizing more progressive methods of debate. That being said, I'll judge it the way the debaters wind up debating the topics. So if you go tech rather than substance I'll still be able to judge properly. Generally I don't expect a value framework and the default is util calculus. Creative and unique arguments will be
Congress: I'm looking for congressional debaters to display appropriate round vision and understanding of the argumentation and how it is interacting on the chamber floor. A great constructive speech given in the middle of a session without clash won't be judged as well as if it were given earlier. I like to see good utilization of questions to impact the debate in chambers, as well as good clash during speeches with direct refutation of other congressional reps. Speeches at the end of a debate on a bill should be more crystallization speeches, and preferably give me weighing mechanisms for how to vote on each bill. Delivery matters, but proper understanding of the interaction of argumentation and directing that debate appropriately impacts my ballot the most heavily. Good funny AGD's are always appreciated as well as some LARP in congress is always nice to see. Proper framing of the issues is something lacking in most congress sessions and doing so will help you stand out on my ballot.
Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered
Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time
Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)
I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.
T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.
Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening
DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.
Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.
Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.
Any questions please feel free to ask!
I am currently a 2A/1N policy debater at Heights High School and have been debating for 2 years. I have debated HUDL (Houston Urban Debate League) since the beginning of my career, and have more recently have been predominantly a TFA/national circuit debater. I've gone mainly for policy arguments with some Cap K so that's what I am most comfortable with but I am not against evaluating or going for other arguments.
Put me on the email chain: mattgonzalesdebate@gmail.com
While I will vote on anything I do have some preference:
- LARP(DA/CP): 1
- T/Theory: 2-3
- Phil: 4
- Identity Kritiks: 3
- Pomo Kritiks: 4
- "Basic" K's (i.e. Cap, Security, Set Col): 1
- K Affs: 5
- Tricks: Strike
While this list is pretty accurate it is good to ask before round about specifics.
General comments:
- Do what you are good at. I am pretty open so as long as you explain your arguments well, I will likely be able to evaluate it. For arguments like Ks that I'm less familiar with doing more explanations within your speeches can go a long way and help me to better evaluate your arguments.
- Tech > Truth unless super dumb
- I love creative LARP debates going for unheard of and homebrew CPs/DAs makes for some of my favorite debates.
- Threshold for speed is a 7/10 (10 being the fastest debater on the circuit). I recommend slowing down on tags and blocks so I can catch everything but don't be afraid to speed through text of card.
- Judge instruction is very helpful and should be heavily utilized in your 2NR/2AR
- During my season I went for Cap K and lot's of LARP off case dump so I'm most comfortable in those rounds. This is not saying don't go for other arguments, but I will be the best judge if this is similar to your strat.
- I'm not great for K affs I typically air that affs should be topical in some form but if it's you thing I can be convinced I just have a higher threshold for voting you than many other judges might.
Specifics:
- Clash is good please try to do it as much as possible it makes the best rounds where people learn the most and I actually feel comfortable voting. Specifically for middle schoolers I've seen multiple rounds where i felt like each side just didn't answer eachother and I had to intervene which is bad for you letting any of my bias come in makes for a worse RFD.
- Impact weighing is your friend. most importantly it makes my life easier but also it is so important to actually win your argument. I love it and you should use it to write my ballot. Impact weighing can always go both ways from extinction to soft left reading framing cards can be crucial when making my decision.
- I'm not the best theory judge out there, but still read it and I will do my best to evaluate. Some of my preferences are condo good, disclosure good, and misdisclosure bad. Feel free to ask me before round about certain theory shells.
- LD/PF:I do policy debate and have never actually competed in any PF or LD. I have judged in two middle school tournaments before and watched multiple lD rounds as well as flowed them. I am still not super familiar with some norms within either format or the topic. Most everything here should still apply, but make sure to ask certain questions before round if it's possible I won't understand.
-Finally don't be sexist, racist, homophobic etc. I will stop the round and tank your speaks if you become offensive within round.
-Make sure to ask clarification questions before round and have fun.
Email: jamie_hao@northlandchristian.org
Ask me questions before the round
LD:
Important stuff
1] No Racism, homophobia, you get it, I will judge intervene and vote you down
2] Accesibility matters
3] Dont be mean, dont read 5 off to a novice.
4] Speaks are default to 28.5 , and i'll take points on and off depending on in round strat, and speech
5] its your decision to stake the round on ev ethics or just a theory shell
NOVICES!
1] Weigh, tell me why your impacts matter and why i should vote for you
2] Collapse on less arguments and go for 1 in the 2N/2A
Quick Hack sheet
K- 1
Phil- 1
Dense Phil- 2
T/Theory- 3
Tricks- 3.5 I dont know how to judge it but the threshold for responding it is rly low
Policy- 4
Trad- 5
- Yes Flex Prep
- Send me docs
- Tech > Truth
Who is this weirdo?
Hi, I'm Anderson! This is my third year debating for Northland Christian School in Houston and I'm a junior. I am a pretty mid national circuit LD debater, and I've done a lot of traditional and progressive LD. I have one career bid round, qualed to TFA State as a sophomore and junior and reached doubles junior year. I have qualed to NSDA Nats 2x in LD and once in extemp. I also made NSDA East Texas in world schools debate.
LD Paradigm
Judging Principles
Tech>Truth to the highest extent ethically possible- judge intervention is inevitable but horrible meaning that my goal as a judge is to give an RFD that minimizes it as much as possible. I hate ideological dogmatism and will eval any arg with these exceptions: 1] If the argument doesn't have a clear claim, COMPLETE warrant, and implication when it is introduced and extended 2] If it makes the debate space unsafe (racism, sexism, etc.) 3] If it is something that asks me to change the LD debate format (6-3-7-3-4-6-3) 4] Callouts - not my jurisdiction to evaluate the actions of a debater that I do not know outside of the round.
Be a bigot and you will be the loser of the round.
I want the doc - email is anderson_hendrix@northlandchristian.org but speechdrop >>>
The state of clarity in LD is nothing short of atrocious. You will want to slow down slightly in front of me. If my writing can't keep up with you, I will certainly not backflow for you. Slow down on analytics, card texts, interp texts, CP texts, etc. Please don't blaze through a 10-point analytic extremely quickly without slowing down, otherwise you won't be happy with your speaks.
Be kind to novices - Do what you need to do to win, but please be reasonable and not intentionally mean. The higher your kindness, the higher your speaks will be.
I am not the type of judge for "this arg isn't specific/is dumb, reject it"- While I obviously enjoy strategies that are tailored specifically to the aff, I also really appreciate generics and they can be very strategic when debated well. I don't share the beliefs of judges that put less weight on generics such as spark, wipeout, process CPs, skepticism, truth testing, SPEC shells, burdens etc. The ppl that label these arguments as "stupid" or "illegitimate" are the worst at answering them.
"Embedded clash" is a no go -please label to me what arguments you are responding to on the flow, in the order that your opponent made them. Long overviews that secretly "answer" arguments will cause me to miss it - prioritize the line by line debate or you won't like my decision.
Open to postrounding as long as you are kind, it increases judging quality, as debaters we should be able to defend our decision (won't be able to change it tho).
Here's my junior year wiki for reference. If all of my yapping isn't enough, I probably agree with Jack Quisenberry, Lilly Broussard, and Jake McCathran on almost everything.
Shortcuts (based off of how comfortable I am with judging them):
Trad - 1 (If you don't want to debate progressive arguments, I would pref me lower bc u will likely go against circuit args)
Policy - 1
Theory - 1
Topicality - 2
Phil - 3 (Util v Phil - 1)
Tricks - 3
K - 4 (cap and setcol are 3, pomo is a strike)
Thought Dump (warning: it's a lot)
NOTE: These are only my thoughts on certain arguments. These are just argumentative preferences that can be overcome by good debating. It's just a blueprint to help you understand how I think about debate.
TRAD DEBATE ---
I am confident with the intricacies of traditional LD and debate it all the time, but am disappointed with it's current state in the debate community.
I will evaluate every traditional debate and ask myself three questions when making a decision. First is framework - I will analyze who is winning the value/criterion and frame all offense through the criterion that is won. Second is offense - I will look at the contention layer in the debate and decide which piece of offense is the most important under the specific framework won. This is where most of my decisions end. Third is speaking - I will only adjudicate the speaking ability of the competitors in the round if there is no offense to vote on or if the round is irresolvable - you shouldn't have to worry about this as long as you extend offense and win the framework debate.
Value/criterion debate is arbitrary. Usually, the debates just boil down to two separate framework debates that don't interact with each other, making the debate difficult to resolve. I suggest either reading one framing mechanism or explaining the connection between the value and criterion.
Saying that the other side's case "doesn't uphold their value/criterion" won't get me to automatically vote for you. You need to explain why your criterion is preferable to theirs and why your offense comes first under YOUR criterion - this is offense that helps you win debates.
Framework isn't a voter. You won't automatically win the round on framework, you MUST extend offense.
If your opponent has the same framework as you, spend more time reading offense and explaining why it matters more under your framework, you shouldn't waste time reading the same framework. Things like "Maximizing well-being" and "minimizing suffering" are the same thing.
The material implications of a resolution probably do have a place in LD, and it will be hard to convince me otherwise.
THEORY---
There is no such thing as "frivolous" theory, the entire point of a theory debate is to determine if the shell is frivolous. I won't "gut check" shells just because I think or you think they are silly. If you think it is a bad shell, you should able to beat it back.
Theory defaults are DTD, CI, No RVIs, text over spirit, and norm setting model, changed with one warrant though.
Theory shells that don't read a voter (fairness, education, etc.) don't have an impact and likely will be disregarded.
Highly technical theory debates that involve lots of critical thinking are the best.
Reasonability is so underrated. Winning it makes winning the theory debate a lot easier. Brightlines for reasonability are confusing to me, I don't think you need a separate brightline for reasonability bc the brightline should just be the counterinterp???
RVIs are probably an uphill battle to win in front of me. I think it's strange that a debater should win on a random counterstandard because the other debater isn't directly violating a shell, especially if the debater who introduced the shell kicked it? However, if you win it, I will definitely still vote on it.
People should utilize in round abuse model/norm setting model more. Winning theory as a norm setting model means I think about the shell in terms of models of debate. Winning an in round abuse model literally frames out any parts of the shell that the debater who violates the shell didn't commit.
I believe disclosure is good. I read anything in my career from disclose round reports to contact info. However, I will not be happy if you read it against someone who clearly doesn't know what it is or have access to the wiki. Sure, you probably will get the ballot, but don't expect high speaks.
I think that reading evidence ethics as a shell is much better than staking the round. If you decide you do a challenge, I will instantly end the round and there are no takebacks. Winner of the challenge gets the W, loser gets the L.
TOPICALITY---
I also really enjoy a good T debate. Every 1NC of mine has at least one T shell these days.
Some T debates confuse me. People seem to have a debate on the definition layer, and then have a separate debate on the interp/counterinterp layer. I think rebuttals should do weighing and explain the connection between definitions + offense while explaining what arguments come first.
Judge instruction PLEASE. If you are winning your definition, tell me why that matters. If you are winning a limits standard, tell me why I am still voting for you, even if the aff wins their PICs DA.
Caselists are ideal, especially if you are reading a ground standard.
Nebel T confuses me, probably because I am not that smart. I'm sure Nebel is awesome, but I think that reading regular T-Can't Spec or T-Subsets is more persuasive then using cards from a debate blog. It's not that I won't evaluate it, but your bare plurals explanation has to be coherent for me to vote on it.
Having multiple counterinterps on a singular shell doesn't make much sense to me. I think definitions should be used to support one counterinterp against a T shell.
Keep in mind that I evaluate topicality more like LD theory, I probably don't think about it the same as policy debate.
POLICY---
This is definitely what I read most. I'm pretty much cool with anything in this category, and I will give really high speaks for high quality policy v policy debates.
PLEASE do lots of impact calc and judge instruction - pretty much who does a better job of this in these debates wins. Every 2NR going for the DA should have analysis such as "DA turns case" + "DA ows case" etc. 2NRs on the CP should do risk analysis.
Breadth>depth 1NC policy strategies are my absolute favorite. I regularly read 5+ offs of policy, and good 1NC construction can make each argument a viable 2NR in round.
2NRs/2ARs that collapse to the straight turn are FIRE, and speaks will be exceptional if this is executed successfully.
Link specificity and evidence quality definitely improve your chances, but evidence comparison and the way evidence is framed within the debate round matters more.
Cheaty CPs (delay, consult, etc.) are a double edged sword. Substantively, they are really strategic and can easily steal parts of the aff. On the other hand, it likely makes you more vulnerable to a theory argument.
Textual competition is kind of fake tbh, I think you need to explain why advocacies such as Word PIKs provide an opportunity cost to the aff.
People should make more theoretical arguments about competition, make the PDCP about models of debate rather than a singular definition. Explain why basing mutual exclusivity on immediacy + certainty is a bad model of debate.
Default to no judgekick, you should tell me to judgekick, I might forget otherwise.
Case debate is underutilized. Read defense, read turns, do something. Not only does it give you more viable 2nrs, but it also gives the aff more things to respond to.
I love impact turns. 7 minutes of impact turns is a FIRE strat. I will vote on the more controversial impact turns, including SPARK and wipeout, barring racism/sexism/etc good.
Soft left affs are cool, my career has been spent mainly reading hard right policy positions, but I have read soft left affirmatives here and there. I think 1ACs should have strong framing arguments that explain why you prefer structural violence impacts and reject extinction arguments.
The best 2AR to the K in my opinion is almost always framework + case OWs + defense to impact and/or ontology.
PHIL---
I enjoy these arguments and find them very interesting, but I am not experienced.
I have a basic understanding of fws such as Util, SV, Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Polls, I-Law, Constructivism, Pragmatism, and Determinism. Please explain anything else very clearly.
Probably bad for straight refs debates if it isn't util, but doing impact calc that explains how you weigh offense will decrease your chances of me being confused.
PLEASE go for turns on phil contentions more - no one does debates on the contention layer in phil rds which makes me sad. I would love to see someone concede to their fw and go for the offense debate if its dropped or undercovered.
Process CPs when ran against phil affs are complicated. "Solving the case better" might matter under the aff framework, but most net benefits of CPs are consequentialist. I am not ideologically biased towards one side of this debate, so I will probably vote for who is doing the better judge instruction.
I don't see how epistemic modesty is viable without framing it in that specific round and doing lots of weighing/risk analysis.
Good for util vs phil debates. Have been on both sides of this debate and really enjoy these when they are executed well. I am a big fan of calc indicts and TJFs.
Fill in a little more gaps for me if both frameworks in the round aren't consequentialist.
TRICKS---
Apparently I am known as a tricks debater on the circuit now??
Fine with them as long as they have warrants - won't pull the trigger on them if the warrant isn't complete.
Don't love one line blips that are in huge blocks of text - persuaded by ableism ivis
The Truth Testing NC is highkey fire - even if it's solely read as a time suck.
Most paradoxes are bidirectional and should lose to a "non-unique, also applies to their side" argument.
Lots of tricks just have zero implication on the round whatsoever when they are read, new implications in later speeches justify new responses to those implications.
I don't know very many aprioris, so good explanation is key - I am perfectly comfortable giving an "I don't get it" rfd - if I can't explain it back, I won't vote on it.
PLEASE don't overdo it - I don't want to see a 120 point underview and would like if the aff had something other than tricks?
You probably won't be able to explain trivialism to the point where I am going to understand it.
K---
Iffy judge for this at best. I have struggled with these arguments throughout my career and won't able to adjudicate these debates well. I have a VERY surface-level understanding of cap, setcol, security, and wilderson, but I pretty much never read kritikal literature.
I know Ks aren't CPs, but if you are going for the alt, your best bet is to explain the alt to me like a CP. Explain why it solves the links of the k, why it solves/turns the case, what it looks like etc.
Independent analytical links and links that quote lines from the 1ac are super strategic.
K 2NRs usually have too much embedded clash, which can be difficult to follow. Debating in a very line by line structure increases your chances of me knowing what's going on.
I will weep mid speech if you introduce brand new framing args (ROTB, Framing interpretations, etc.) in the 2NR.
K Affs---
I just read T-FWK and PIKs against these so I don't know much about them. Please explain what the advocacy does and why it's important, otherwise I will be extremely persuaded by a 2NR presumption push.
Non-T affs should have ballot key warrants and explain why debating the topic is bad.
I personally believe that affs should be tied to the topic in at least some capacity?
T-Framework---
I want to say that I will be 50-50, and I will try my best to do that, but I realistically lean more towards framework, because I have really only debated on this side.However, I will attempt to put dispositions behind me when evaluating these debates.
I think fairness and skills 2NRs are equally viable. You just go for what you are good at and what is best given the 1AR.
The best framework shells diversify their offense by linking it to different impacts and warrant why each impact is important.
2NRs going for T are probably screwed if they concede case/TOP.
I would be impressed if you could get me to vote on "fairness is just an internal link".
If you are answering T-FWK, please just explain it to me and why it ows the neg arguments. Defense against standards is also important to me. You'll wanna explain your arguments to me like I am a preschooler, because I am not at all familiar. I'm probably missing a lot of things so just ask me.
Speaks!
My range of speaks that I give is from 26-30, and I start from a 28.5 and move up or down for there. I give speaks based on clarity, strategy, execution, and critical thinking (not reading off a doc for 13 mins). My speaks scale is like this:
30 - Omg I'm inspired, winning the TOC
29.4-29.9 - Fantastic debater, will reach mid to late elims
29-29.3 - Did a great job, early elims
28.5-28.9 - Did good, Bubble round
28-28.4 - Getting up there, possibly bubble round
27-27.9 - Can be improvements to your strat, but you have potential.
26-26.9 - Probably not ready for the event/division
Lowest speaks I can give - isms/phobias/ev ethics/clipping/stuff of that sort
Additionally, sitting down early/using less prep time will be rewarded with higher speaks, you have to win the round for this to apply though.
Hiii!!! My name is Rubick (or Rubi for short) and I really enjoy judging speech and debate rounds. I am more of a debater but I also enjoy a good speech/interp round. I did debate all four years of high school and mainly focused on WSD (with a side of extemp), so that is what I am the most comfortable with. If I am judging a round, there are a few things that I am looking for;
In World Schools Debate
1. Which team proves and justifies their side the most? Making sure you prove your arguments to be true is highly important as it gives me an idea of what your side looks like. It also proves that you are able to defend your side and outweigh your arguments.
2. Provide framework and characterization for your side. It helps to know what to look for in your arguments and case.
3. If you have a principle argument, explain why your argument is true and how it can be fulfilled. If you have a practical argument, make sure to give links to your argument and clear impacts. You should be able to use your arguments and compare them to your opponents. Don't tell me their argument is non-unique without telling me why. Or don't tell me your arguments are better than your opponents without telling me why. Keep in mind that there is always a WHY to an argument. Always make sure to weigh your arguments!
4. If your speech is organized and there is clear signposting then it is easy for me to follow what you are saying. With that being said, it doesn't mean I will prioritize style over content but it can help you get more points. Make sure to sound conversational and not like you are reading off a paper. Try to engage with your opponents during refutation or during POIs. It should feel consistent throughout the bench and like every speaker is doing what they are supposed to do. Should not be like speaker 3 bringing up information to salvage the round that should have been brought by speaker 2 which by then might be too late and wouldn't really count anymore.
5. Your POIs should be strategic. Make sure to try to ask POIs during every speech and try to take 1-2 throughout your speeches. A lack of POIs can look like a lack of engagement with your opponents. This doesn't mean you should be barricading your opponents with POIs, you must always be considerate.
Overall, make sure to have fun and enjoy the debate. I expect everyone to be nice and respectful during the round at all times.
In PF/LF
Although I am no expert, I have a couple of years of experience judging and a few times participating in either event.
PF: I like to see argumentation. Which side best utilizes the most to respond to their opponents? It also means having well-developed arguments that have warrants and impact. I also look to see if there is interaction or clash. How can you explicitly respond to an argument made by your opponent? Otherwise, the unaddressed argument will take the higher ground. Keep in mind how you respond to an argument and how you discredit your opponent’s arguments. This will help me see who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round. Since this is a team event, I also look for team balance. Make sure team effort between partners is noticeable. There should be consistency between the two, make sure both bring the same rebuttal or almost the same. I should not hear new arguments during the last few speeches. Lastly, I would prefer no spreading, but if you normally talk fast, just try your best to ensure that whatever you say is understandable.
LD: I will vote based on the debater most successful in protecting their side. Regarding the structure of argumentation, I look for who is the better debater by advancing ideas while also engaging in their opponent’s argument. I enjoy good delivery, warrant, and impact. When it comes to framework-level argumentation, I want to know why your framework makes you win, and respond to the framework always; What do you value? What is your value criterion? Which framework is best to evaluate the arguments? I want you to make sure you explain your side and engage with your opponents as much as possible. At the end of the round, I am voting for the right side because of how much you tried to persuade me and how much you showed me your side outweighs the other.
In Speech/Interp events:
Extemp: Although I know you only have 30 minutes to research and memorize a speech and it can be very challenging for some, (trust me, I struggled with this event too) I want you to try your best to inform me or persuade me of whatever it is that you are speaking about. Your speech should be easy to follow. Have a beginning, middle, and end. I love a good intro that makes me want to listen to more, even better if you can tie it up with your conclusion and your arguments should help you answer the question you are given. After your speech, I want to feel like I just learned something new even if it is about an event that has been talked about for years now. First and foremost, be confident! Nothing else matters if you yourself don't feel good about what you are doing.
Others: Have fun while you are sharing a story. Make sure to feel confident and know you gave it your all. I might not know much but I know these might be stories from real-life people and you should make sure you are not just telling a story but teaching your audience why this story or moment is important. Most importantly, be yourself and stay true to who you are.
Regardless of the event, I will always enjoy a good round. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to my personal email at rubickhernandez@gmail.com
Personal Background
As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.
Speech
I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them
Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.
That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.
For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).
Debate 1v1/2v2(Congress and Worlds are further down)
-
I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
-
for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
-
Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
-
If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
-
Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
-
Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.
-
That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
-
Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
-
Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
-
Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF(Particularly "fully realized" plans/CPs as it is against the rules of the event, I will of course consider arguments for the interp of what "fully realized" means and T/argumentation on the rule itself in round)
-
Do not run any of the above in BQ, as per NSDA rules you cannot get my ballot, do not even run in round theory to call out your opponents violation this will also make it impossible for me to vote for you.
-
At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not
Congress
-
CLASH sorry for yelling but if you are not the author or sponsor PLEASE CLASH in at least some capacity please don't make congress 50 separate 3 minute pro/con challenge speeches
-
Round vision and how you fit into your speaking position in round are often very important to my ranks
-
examples being an early speaker presenting the “stock” issues(that haven't already been presented) which will have clash throughout the rest of the topic, presenting more uncommon arguments as a middle speaker, grouping arguments for more efficient clash as a later speaker, and giving a concise round overview and impact consideration on why we should/shouldn’t pass a bill as the set of final “crystallization” speeches
-
Speech scores are relative to that speaking position only. Having a speech score of “5” for a pre-prepared authorship speech is not equivalent to a “5” for a crystallization speech for example. As the difficulty of the speeches are not equivalent, differences in rank as when compared to speech score sum are often attributed to this.
-
The best way to make up for what you felt may have been a mediocre speech, in a non-ideal speaking position for your strengths is to ask pointed questions throughout that havent been said before that probe a weakness and set up another speaker. As a judge questioning period is often important to rankings on both sides of the question
-
Despite some compelling reports to the contrary I am not a robot, and as such memorability influences my ranks, when I get down to the bottom ranks especially memorability can go along way to getting a 7 for example and not becoming just one of the 9s
Worlds
-
For worlds I generally try to judge as by the book as possible for the 40/40/20 split for content, style, and strategy.
-
Content: I do flow for the sake of content scores and a record, the flow is not the end all like it is for other events
-
That being said for this part of the scoring being technical does matter, for example for me dropping an argument does matter and if pursued by the other team can significantly affect the content score
-
Style: This scoring section pretty much correlates to how I would judge speaking for a platform event in speech. Examples being vocal inflection, rhetoric, stumbling, emphasis, etc.
-
Strategy: When I score this section I first consider the question “Did you address the most critical issues as it pertains to both the round and the topic, and did you prioritize them effectively” This will be the bulk of the strategy score. The remainder of the score is considering POIs, particularly when you accept them(you probably wouldn’t want to accept one in the most impactful part of your speech), how you address them(skipping over it, punting it to the next speaker, or answering/outweighing it), and if you don't accept any. Not accepting any will only hurt you if the other team has given ample opportunities to accept POIs and you don't recognize any of them.
I am a former 1A/2N policy debater at Heights High School and have been involved in debate for the past 3 years. I have debated HUDL (Houston Urban Debate League) since the beginning of my career but have been predominantly a TFA/national circuit debater. I have a good understanding of debate but fall 2024 will be my first time judging anything above middle school debate and I will be a first year out. do with that what you will!
Yes I would like to be on the email chain: kaitlynlewis10305@gmail.com
general stuff:
- do what you are good at. if you somehow end up with me in the back of the room and your argument preferences do not align with mine, don't try to over adapt to me. i try my best to be as flexible of a judge as possible (debate is for the debaters, not the judges)
- tech > truth - but this doesn't mean that i auto vote you up because your opponent dropped an argument you made. you still have to extend it fully. if you think that the concession of this argument means you won this debate, tell me why. you still need to implicate it out for me so i know why this concession matters for the ballot.
- strike me for tricks. i did policy debate so i will just be confused and sad if i'm in the back of the room for that kind of debate.
- i'd say i'm pretty good for speed. i'm good with flowing but definitely slow on analytics. i also try my best not to flow off the doc but i will be checking cards to catch any clipping or misc stuff.
- do not be rude pls it makes the debate space so uncomfortable for everyone involved. I understand sometimes with like black fem rage or asian rage arguments you feel that you need to be rude for performance but u rlly don't. if you are just being assertive in cx or otherwise its mostly ok as long as we aren't making the debate space hostile or unwelcoming
- i don't like judge intervention. i often times as a debater would feel that i lost a debate because the judge made the arguments for the other team or just gave them credit for more work than was actually done in their speeches. so, i will do everything in my power to do the least amount of judge intervening as possible. with that, please do sufficient weighing and do your best to write my ballot for me in 2 nr/ar.
- i spent this most recent season going for the set col almost every 2NR. the season before i almost always went for security. do what you will with that info. for anyone who thinks oh nvm can't pref her she's only a k judge --- while its true that i hardly ever went for the da/cp debate on the neg, almost every aff round i had was fully policy and they were a lot of fun so I love those debates just as much as the k and would be more than happy to judge these debates!
other things:
- PLEASE compare evidence. this is soooo underutilized in debate and such a solid argument. this is especially relevant for topicality debates.
- impact weighing is so important. I think this is especially true of disad v case debates because if you both have some extinction impact you must explain why you win t/f and probability and why those matter more.
- k's (on the neg): I went for the k a lot and I think I am the most experienced with this argument. But I won't hack for you and I was a 2N who spread through like 200 blocks in the 2nc and then tried to capitalize on what the 1ar drops. If the 1ar does drop something thats not an auto neg ballot - explain to me why it should be though. For aff teams I'm forgiving to new 1ar answers if the argument was new in the block or super blown up in the block. Also I think case outweighs is really underutilized in these debates so use being aff to your advantage. For neg teams explanation is super important on the alt. I cannot and will not vote for an alt I do not understand.
- k's (on the AFF): i do not have a lot of experience with this debate but when i was in these rounds as a debaters i almost exclusively went for fw. i don't really know how good i am for these debates so i wouldn't count on me being awesome for an extremely close debate but if that's what you like to read, go for it. i will def need more explanation (on both sides) but I will do my best. definitely better for the k v fw debate than for the k v k debate - but i can for sure follow along especially if you are going for like "cap solves root cause" or whatever.
- da's: i love disad + case 2nrs. like so much. i think these debates are the most fun to judge (LARP in general honestly). i don't have any unusual thoughts here other than i think winning a DA without case in the 2nr is tough. obvi specific links > generic links. i think aff teams need to question disad internal link chains bc would us not passing 'x' bill cause extinction.... likely not.
- i am decent for either side of the theory debate. one thing abt me is I do think the 50 state voting fiat theory can be implicating out as a reason to reject the team, as well as ANY theory arg. I don't understand why judges commonly default do drop the arg if the other team didn't explain why it's not a reason the reject the team, so weird. no other special thoughts here. just if you want me to reject the team, make sure to implicate it out.
- ld/pf: i am a strictly policy debater but have judged ld before. many pf (and some ld) specific arguments may be foreign to me so try to explain as best you can. most of my general stuff will likely still apply to you and don't worry about me, just do what you are comfortable with!
lastly,debate is fun, rounds where no one looks like they want to be there are significantly worse to judge. the more effort you put into the round = the more effort I will put into my decision.
I used to be a debate student, but have now gone off to college. I was a part of Lincoln Douglas in 2023
Spread is fine, but I'd prefer it not to be so fast that I can't pick up the main idea of what you are saying.
Off-cases are fine, no tricks, please.
speaker points will be won based on how you speak to your opponent and present your case. Be at least somewhat passionate and knowledgeable about your case.
weighing is very important, thus you will be more likely to win the round if you can accurately weigh your arguments against your opponent. sometimes there isn't an easy turn for an argument, prove to me why your argument means more.
impacts will be a large deciding factor for me as well. if your impact is nuclear war, recession, etc, a single card won't do it for me. for me to take this argument, you will need to explain the likelihood.
Be kind to each other and to the communities you may be discussing.
I'm somewhat progressive, but I also value traditional aspects. if you speak pretty and prove you know your topic, speaker points go up. respond to all impacts, and weigh, you'll be fine.
good luck to all ✨✨
email: jake_mccathran@northlandchristian.org
hi i'm jake (he/him) and i'm a third year debater at northland christian school who does mainly ld. contact me before round if you have any questions
LD:
basically just debate how you want, i will evaluate any arguments with warrants. i'm more of a tech over truth judge, but please extend your arguments, even if your opponent drops them, or i will not flow them. weigh your offense, i don't care how many arguments you're winning in the round, it means nothing to me if you don't weigh. in terms of framework, explain why you winning framework matters, if it means the opponent has no offense, explain to me why. too many times i see debates over framework that have no impact on the round whatsoever. i have my progressive related paradigm at the bottom but before you even consider it, please make sure your opponent is ok with it, if you spread against someone who is inexperienced, your speaks will be tanked. also if you're gonna spread, add me to the email chain.
things i like:
- collapsing to one contention
- good weighing
- highlighting your cards in light blue
- being respectful to your opponent
- clear voters at the end of rebuttals
things i don't like:
- being unnecessarily rude
- stealing prep
- talking too quiet or just being unclear
- new responses in the 2nr or 2ar (for pf, no new args in the final focus)
- being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. (please just use common sense)
for speaks, i'll usually give them based off good speaking, being polite, and having good strategy such as strategically collapsing, good extensions, and good weighing. another good way you can get speaks from me is making the round funny. seriously if you just take 5 seconds out of your speech to make a joke, i laugh at a lot of things and you can definitely get a boost by making the round entertaining. a few good ways to get your speaks tanked include clipping cards, stealing prep, being totally unclear, and being disrespectful to your opponent.
for y'all progressive folks:
larp is very cool and probably what i'm most comfortable with judging as that is what i have gone for almost all my rounds. plans, DAs, CPs, all that stuff i'm fine with but without weighing, i'm a lost man. pls weigh. impact turns im very much fine with. counterplans i love, especially abusive counterplans, but u better be ready for a theory debate if it's too abusive.
theory is also very cool and i couldn't care less how stupid your shell is, just make sure u have actual warrants in your standards. default to DTD, competing interps, and no RVIs. 1ar theory is cool but im open to that debate.
Ks really aren't my jam, but they are cool when i know what's going on. i really only know cap ks, set col, afropes, and anything else NEEDS explanation. i think i lot of people miss it when people say your Ks needs explanation because i still never see good explanations in round. do not assume i know your K. also make sure your alt is clear in what it does.
phil is pretty fun, i love kant and util, and can judge rawls, structural violence, and hobbes, but also explain these!!! slow down on analytics, i like tjfs, and meta ethics are also cool.
tricks are definitely a thing. they can be funny and smart if executed correctly, but i will not vote on it if it doesn't have a warrant. also be accessible when running this sort of stuff such as novices because i would really hate to vote off a one line ivi that went conceded by someone and it's like their second tournament. just be mindful about that or speaks go downnnnn.
other debate events
my ld paradigm cross applies for the most part, but for events such as pf, worlds, etc, please don't spread or run crazy progressive positions. i also don't know the topics, so treat me as a pretty lay judge.
IEs
i don't do IEs very much, but i judge based off how well you present yourself, your clarity, and the content of your speech, such as having good sources and analysis. also, make it entertaining. a lot of speeches just talk about politics and get boring fast, so throw in some jokes and i'll be more likely to be engaged and rank you higher.
email: emymorgan45@gmail.com
I am an ex-high school debater for heights high school, I debated for about 3 and a half years. I debated in the policy format, so I have little experience in other formats such as LD and PF. This means that if you are going to run arguments that are exclusive/ only popular in your respective formats(i.e. phil/tricks in LD), you will need to take extra time to explain how they interact with the debate.
pref sheet (based on my familiarity! I want debaters to run arguments that they want to run, as long as they arent harmful run whatever you want):
LARP: 1 I've spent a lot of my time in debate running LARP strategies on the neg, with an average of 4-5 off case, so I think generics are good, and pointing out something is generic doesn't win you offense or defense unless you tell me why
T: 1
I have a lot of thoughts about theory and topicality, love the arguments, went for them a lot my senior year despite policy not being very good for those kinds of arguments. I like all kinds of theory arguments, would prefer more robust ones to shallow ones but I am not hacking. p.s. rant at the bottom of my paradigm about procedurals
I evaluate T as a disad, i.e.
The interp generates uniqueness (in the same way a uniqueness cp does)
The violation is the link
The standards are the internal link
The voters are the impact
This also means that there is offense and defense on this flow, so 'risk of offense' independent of the genuine validity of the interp can be convincing
This also means that paradigm issues (reasonability/competing interps) are very important on this flow, telling me how to evaluate the debate is an important tool for you, especially if you disagree with how I evaluate topicality, a robust reasonability push means you can still win the flow without standard or voter debating
I also think that a lot of T arguments are versatile, clever cross application of standards on other parts of the flow and vice versa, as well as cross applying t on to other flows is important
do voter weighing, I evaluate this flow as a disad, and you do impact calc with disads, do it here too
Th: 1
Similar thoughts to my Topicality thoughts above but there are some unique things here
first I think procedurals are on a separate level to topicality, i.e. if you win fairness bad on the topicality flow and don't cross apply fairness bad onto the procedural flow I will still evaluate fairness on the procedural flow
Similar to paradigm issues, telling me to evaluate the flow as 'in round abuse' or 'models of debate' are pretty important, and you could also use it to answer things like reasonability or as a justification for reasonability
I'm cool with almost any interp, the worse the interp the easier it should be to answer as the standards are harder to justify, just dont make it offensive or classist
although I won't evaluate out of round arguments I can't see on the wiki. I will vote on disclosure, and if you want to, for example, make a theory shell about how non-black debaters shouldn't read afropess, the violation should be able to be proven on the wiki. Another judge put it well, "I have neither the authority nor the resources to do my own investigation", so I will only do so if it can be proven on an opponent's wiki. (the exception is disclosure emails)
Hiding theory is lame, paragraph shells are less lame but if you really want to go for a shell I would appreciate if you said something like 'new sheet' in the roadmap and read a full shell
'no rvi's' is just a claim with no warrant, dont let it scare you, make it an rvi if you want
I also evaluate theory as a disad, clever cross applications are important, voter weighing is good, same stuff as above
structuralist K's: 2-3 I love cap and borderlands, familiar with SetCol, psycho, afropess, and a couple others, just ask
I did not debate K's a lot as a high school debater and was never really good with dense fw debates. That being said it was less a lack of understanding and more my inability to zoom out during rounds and identify more important offense, mostly due to limited time. Now that I am a judge I have more time to analyze that and I am also not the one making strategic decisions so you should not let my past dissuade you from reading those types of arguments.
pomo K's: 4-5 Can't say I am familiar with any pomo lit bases so it's going to require extra explanation
tricks: 5/Strike Never seen a tricks debate, I won't hack against you I will probably just be confused
Just remember to ask questions, I've judged at only three tournaments so the pref sheet is more based on my familiarity with the arguments as a debater, rather than a judge.
Other thoughts:
im good for speed
tech > truth
time yourselves please, I will be timing but I'm not perfect with it
you should take the easiest route to my ballot, don't drop conceded contentions for the sake of clash, but also tell me why you win the debate because they dropped whatever they dropped
for pf, please keep crossfire kind and formal, especially for grand crossfire, judging a crossfire that turns into a shouting match is uncomfortable and I will dock your speaks
rant:
If you are about to be judged by me this is most likely not relevant to you unless you're as into theory as I am, but I have strong opinions about theory and specifically how judges evaluate theory in debate.
I personally believe debate is a game (although can be persuaded otherwise on a round by round basis) and that judges are expected to be educators. this entails an expectation for judges to evaluate arguments debaters make and give feedback on how they are run. This is not an unpopular view, and a lot of judges actually agree on this, which makes it strange the fact that judges are also willing to hack on the subject of theory. As a debater, I've dropped ballots because people don't think that "x issue" is a voting issue. This injection of internal bias is judges determining what education is and isn't important, and that is not something the judge should be allowed to do, debaters debate for different reasons, and if they find that theory debate is where they learn the most, there is almost no justifiable reason(excluding reasons like it's racist or transphobic) to hack against a team for reading an interp they didn't like, or reading theory in general. Even if you think that topic education/policy education is super important, it creates a strange interaction with the fact judges are also willing to vote on k affs. If policy or topic education is so important to you, why don't you hack against k aff teams? Either you do hack against both, which is objectionable for separate reasons, or it is just personal bias. Not liking theory is not enough to hack against them, you are judging for a reason, either to meet an obligation, you're getting paid, or you think debate is important, in any case, you have a reason to be judging, you aren't here for yourself, so behave accordingly, and make the round for the debaters, your enjoyment of the debate is second to what the debaters want. Another issue is the paradigms judges put out. A lot of paradigms out there are just misleading, in the way they have a tldr section that says they are 'blank slate' 'tab' or 'will vote on anything', but will not vote on an interp, or, in the same paradigm, have a list of interps they don't think are a voting issue. Lying to kids in an educational activity is pretty objectionable, and it is pretty easy to write 'almost anything, excluding x theory interp', and nor is it a fringe case that debaters go for theory, so it's pretty strange the judges are willing to just, lie about that. Still, judges that include a list of interps that they don't think are voting issues is still bad, like congrats on figuring out your biases, but when you find a bias the response should not be 'let me warn people' but instead 'let me try and adjust myself'. People are willing to adjust biases for other arguments, K debaters who spent 4 years saying policy education is bad will become judges and vote on big stick affs, and da/cp debaters try their best to understand and vote on K's, but the compromise ends at theory debates for some reason. Judges are fine with voting on arguments they don't agree with because they think the education is valuable, or because debate is for the debaters and so they should evaluate the argument, the same logic should apply to theory as well. If you don't vote on theory because you don't understand it, you should just say that. Judge adaptation is an educational part of debate, if your judge just can't understand the cap k, don't run the cap k, but if you can understand theory, but won't vote on it, that isn't something debaters should be forced to adapt to. All of this has an impact on debate, I've already talked about how debaters education is damaged, because in many rounds they just can't do theory debate because they won't get a ballot for it, but its an issue more broadly for fairness and education. Theory and topicality debate is specifically good for small schools. Large programs have a lot of coaches and team members to go in and cut a bunch of cards, easing the prep burden for their teams, small schools don't have the same ability, skewing the debate towards big schools. Theory debates are not the same, specifically in T debates, you really only need one definition card, having multiple definition cards isn't nearly as important as having several carded link answers to a disad for example. Having one intent to exclude card is good enough to beat several intent to define cards, so just like that it is evened out. Big schools could get coaches to write out a ten point response to an interp, but if it is not their debaters doing that work, they wont know how to extend it. Allowing judges to pick and choose what they think are voting issues, is also an issue itself. T, Theory, K's, CP's, DA's, C/T's, policy aff's, k aff's, they're all important arguments in debate, each produces their own education, none of the above are arguments judges should hack against, and allowing judges to just pick which of the above are important to them is an issue itself. I want to be the judge I always wanted in the back of the room in my debates, I want to be a judge who doesn't scare debaters into not collapsing on their favorite/winning argument because they think the judge will hack against them, theory is as valid a collapse as a cp, or a disad, and I will evaluate your debates as such, your judge adaptation is not a question of do I like it or not, but a question of do I understand it or not. I am also not saying that I will hack for theory. I think theory is very interesting, and I enjoy it a lot, and I find answering theory as enjoyable and as interesting as reading it, so as long as you don't drop the flow I will evaluate the arguments made on both sides equally. Anyway, thanks for reading my rant.
(***By the way 'infinite theory args bad'/'non res theory bad' is still an argument I could buy, just cause I like theory and think it's important doesn't mean I won't eval this arg***)
she/her | pf debater at seven lakes (the 2 in seven lakes AR)
siri@ramineni.name
tech > truth, links > weighing. every argument that you are going for needs warrants + impacts
its novice night – be nice to your opponents pls
i look at weighing, then links. winning weighing doesn't matter if you lose terminal defense on case. you can still win if you win weighing and lose not terminal defense as long as its implicated correctly
read cut cards!
i'm assuming novice night won't have much prog but a few notes
1. framing should be used to actually frame the round. i would prefer an extension but it's not necessary
2. i'm familiar w/ topical set col, sec, cap, fem + race ir
i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy
i try to judge like bryce Piotrowski
hi, i'm andy, i debate for Bellaire :)
he/him/his
background:
congress & some extemp | 7 years
general:
-
you're the debater
-
you do the debating and let me do the judging
-
if you don't say it (clearly), i don't flow it
-
speed - 5/10
-
norms - if it ends in ism, it probably isn't appropriate
-
if it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t exist
congress:
-
i mained this event, so i know it very well - it's a badly structured event
-
main caveat: if it’s a “debate event”, then it should be judged as an actual debate (even tho it’s not)
warranting is #1 - anything that goes unwarranted is dropped
defense/offense role - anything your side says, you uphold because you operate as one faction
-
if your side doesn’t respond to something, absent your defense, i assume it’s conceded
-
this affects your argumentation negatively if you don’t respond, but read the same warrants that have already gone conceded
-
vice versa for offense, i will assume that your side is dropping the offense if you do not tell me what offense has been read and why it still applies
-
absolutely no counterplans, it removes the point of debating the legislation
speaking - the easy part
-
everyone can yap
-
not everyone can make yapping not sound like yapping
-
you should not look down at your pad for anything other than sources and names
-
if there is a lack of eye contact, i will be very sad and drop you
-
if you’re funny, then use it to your advantage
-
if you’re not, then don’t try to be
-
rhetoric is awesome
-
stylistically, i don’t care what you go for, but play to your strengths
cx - please don’t be overly aggressive
-
it is ok to assert yourself, but don’t be rude or aggressive
-
you should not be using this time to make an argument
-
if you use the words, “how does your argument still stand?”, i will stop listening
- if you use the words, "where's the expert that says that?", i will also stop listening
-
if you shout, i’m tuning you out
weighing - this is my absolute favorite thing
-
weigh comparatively - compare option x and y, but make the comparison using some kind of standard
-
magnitude, scope, timeframe, pre-req, etc.
-
but on top of these standards, compare within them
-
i.e. 100 million dollars > 10 million dollars (magnitude)
-
without weighing, i have to intervene and weigh myself
-
but this is ultimately your job, so if you don’t weigh, i will drop your speech score
framing - this is my second favorite thing
-
frame using stakeholder analysis/important questions in the debate
-
part of framing is backtracking: “so far in this debate…”
-
just remind me of what’s happened so far cuz the rounds are long
-
establish a stakeholder - which group/entity is most important
-
what is the goal of the legislation?
-
which side accomplishes the goal of the legislation for the stakeholder best?
-
always start from the status quo
-
what is changing from the status quo?
-
and if historical precedent applies, what is different from past policy?
-
the AFF has a burden to prove the change is unique, the goal is met, and the stakeholder wins
-
the NEG has a burden to prove either the change is non-unique, the goal is not met, or the stakeholder loses
-
whoever proves this to me, wins the debate
individual - ultimately tho, this is an individual event (IE, haha not debate)
-
i rank individuals by interaction with the round
-
your speech should uniquely build upon your side’s foundation
-
if it contributes nothing, you are definitely getting the 9
-
the person that is most aware of everything above will earn the 1
-
if it’s really close, i’ll use speaking to differentiate
pf:
emphasis on the lay part in flay
-
i will evaluate prog to the best of my ability, but no promises
-
err on the side of assuming i have no idea what you’re reading or how to evaluate it
if i am capable of understanding it, i will vote on it except:
-
if a school is not allowed to disclose, even if non-verifiable, i will not vote for disclosure theory
general things:
-
tech > truth - unless it's blatantly abusive (i.e. the Holocaust isn't real)
-
i won’t flow cross unless you bring it up in speeches
-
all new arguments before 2nd summary
-
defense is not sticky
-
love weighing, esp metaweighing, but only if warranted
- extend warranting, not just card names into summary/final focus
-
if you could signpost/give me a roadmap before speeches, it would help a lot :)
-
i default to cost-benefit analysis
-
absent offense, i presume for loser of the flip, unless warranted
-
base 28 spks
if you debate well and write my ballot for me, then it’ll be an easy win
-
if you don’t, then i have to intervene (ex: if there’s 0 offense in final focus)
don’t make me be that judge that has to intervene.
any other debate event:
treat me like a pf judge, read through my congress stuff if that helps
interp (except extemp):
no idea what i'm doing
good luck and have fun :D
jordanldcases@gmail.com; heres my highschool wiki. 7 bids, 5 tournament wins.
copied a lot from other ppls paradigms.
u deserve a quality rfd; feel free to ask questions, email after round, or anything of that sort.
Shortcuts:
baudrillard > truth
These are how often i read the arg, NOT how much i want to see these arguments; I love all arguments equally and will evaluate everything you read regardless of how controversial, low quality, or odd it may be.
1. K ac/nc, phil ac/nc, theory
2. Policy aff, counterplans, disads, topicality
3. Soft left, tfw, tricks
Arguments:
Speed: I understand needing to go fast in some rounds, so i sympathize and can handle your top speed. Although, my flow will be increasingly organized the slower and clearer you are (i'll also reward your speaks!).
Disclosure: my wiki was top tier so anything flys --- go for cites, round report, os, new affs, preflip.If it makes you marginally irritated, make it a shell! I will intervene if you get caught lying. Disclosure is not an out of round violation.
Kritiks: I'll eval it that you can explain it. Overviews are good, but keep it short and its better on the lbl. Love K tricks, 1NC framing interps are strategic, love floating pik's just have some semblance of it in the 1nc.
Good for either germane or generic links. Ask me preround about authors---i'll likely know most. Intrinsic perms vs k's are beautiful.
Agnostic on framework: hard right plan focus and hard left 'u link u lose' are probably the most effective, but im good for everything.
K affs:
K v T---neutral. Hard left impact turns and hard right fairness is the easiest but would love to see t-tactics or clash with a TVA.
K v K---Love it. compare theories of power--I think framing gets under utilized in these debates. I dont like no perm blocks but its strategic nevertheless.
K v Phil---read a phil nc versus a k aff, will give you phenomenal speaks if you win. been on both sides of this interaction a ton and won both ways.
K v Turns---(thx nick fleming) love heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. if you take a radically left position but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you're a coward.
Phil:
read most frwks, love substantive debates. just like the K section---ask preround about authors.
I dont like phil w/ apriori's bc those debates always devolve to tricks not phil, which at that point just make it a full tricks debate. That absolutely does not mean phil 'tricks' are off the table - i loved reading induction fails, calc indicts, afc, nfc, somewhat explicit skep triggers, performativity, etc.
Skepticism - I love it, i went for it a lot. Love the Permissibility and Epistemic Modesty/Certainty -- just do impact calc for how I should evaluate the debate.
TJF's are strategic but dont let it be the only tool in your tool box.Theology is super interesting---if you can execute it, i would love to see it.
Theory: Great when its executed well. These debates get underwarranted, if everything is developed youll get high speaks.
Love restarts. Will evaluate anything -- read everything from AFC, to T, to Spec. 1AR theory needs to be fleshed out. Weigh between standards, judge instruction makes theory debates easy to resolve.
Evidence ethics: please debate the shell in round -- if you chose to stake the round, I'll only vote for you if the wording of a card is egregiously miscut to intentionally change the meaning of the card.
Independent voters need to be at least slightly fleshed out - otherwise a 2 second response is sufficient.
I will not vote on out of round violations, or out of round issues. BUT I do think that disclosure is in round.
Tricks: Great, but I prefer substantive ones like trivialism and indexicals. Go for a few and develop them in later speeches. Be innovative -- reading a new trick that I've never seen before gets you 30 speaks. I err against strats that require multiple concessions all over the place for a coherent strategy.
Won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). Err against extemping large blocks of spikes, might miss some. if you do, please look me in the eye or make sure im flowing you.
TT: TT v K is cool, go for it, i think k debaters are terrible at answering it.
TT v comparative worlds -- will flip each side on this.
TT v Theory -- agonistic.
Policy:
Gotten better at adjudicating this after extensive topic research/going for case turns almost every 2N. I love 7 mins of impact turns.
Will judge kick but if you tell me too.cNet benefits dont have to be germane, but better if it is. Both functional and textual comp is not needed, but 1ar args for why they are, is valid. Intrinsicness tests are interesting, neutral on 1ar intrinsicness in general, just justify it.
Trad:
Circuit vs. Trad. No mercy.
Speaks: I will disclose.
Accessibility: let me and your opponent know if you have or want anything - avoid having to debate about it bc it trivializes accommodations, dont weaponize this for strategic benefit either.
Hard no to voting on out of round issues - barring wiki stuff and disclosure ofc.
Credentials - I went to TFA Texas State Championship in both 2023 and 2024. I went to NCFL National Championship in 2023. I specialize and am experienced in PF as this is my event for these tournaments.
Overview -I will not tolerate anyone being purely disrespectful. While I am a Tech judge, I can be very lay. I am tech>truth. I will not do the work for you so make your links as clear as possible and explain all arguments you want me to consider when making my final decision. While I know speed can be useful please refrain from spreading, If I can't understand you I will not flow it. I will give you two warnings before dropping my pencil. Debate is an event based upon communication so communicate clearly. Use prep time wisely and you have a grace period of one sentence.
Framework + Case Structure -I will evaluate the framework given by both teams. If only one team offers a framework and there is no clash or framework given by the opposing team, I will judge based on the framework given. I expect clear and concise contentions that should be easy to follow and flow.
Flowing + Clash -I will flow all contentions and subpoints plus evidence, AGAIN IF YOU ARE TOO FAST OR UNCLEAR, I WON'T FLOW. Any evidence you want specifically considered or any arguments please continue to emphasize throughout the round. You must carry your arguments throughout the round otherwise I will consider them to be dropped. I am fine with theory cases but try to refrain from K args. CLASH on all arguments and provide offense plus defense. I will evaluate all case turns and I am fine with you collapsing similar arguments.
Cross Ex - Please use Cross Ex wisely. Try to refrain from making arguments but rather set traps to exploit in speeches. I will evaluate Cross Ex. While I do know Cross Ex can get heated, refrain from being disrespectful. If something is mentioned in cross but not brought up again I will consider it dropped.
FF -Make it clear what I am voting on. Weigh throughout rounds but especially in FF. IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT. When I vote I need to know what happens when I vote AFF vs when I vote NEG or vice versa. Basically, why should you win, and why they should not.
WORLDS -
I will evaluate the two best arguments in the round and compare them and that will win my ballot. You can drop args in the round but the one you collapse on needs to outweigh and have stronger links than the other team's strongest arg. Presentation matters just as much as argumentation. My flow and clash + framework and case structure cross-supply to worlds as well.
Any other questions feel free to ask. (Yes put me on email chains - Devon.stevenson08@gmail.com)
*NOTE - I HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THE NEW APRIL TOPIC - TREAT ME LIKE I'M CLUELESS*
My paradigm is the rectangular opposite of Bryce Piotrowski's.
FOR NOVICE NIGHT:
debate however you want, just be clear and go slow and try your best! gl!
I compete in LD at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit. I also dabbled a bit in PF and CX.
Please add vishalsurya0704@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear. I will try to be the best judge I can.
This paradigm is inordinately long; a brief skim should help you find the most relevant sections to determine your adaptation strategy.
TL;DR/General: I am fine with any strategy, but the best arguments are both technically strategic and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Patently untrue or overly esoteric arguments require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. Speed is fine but slow down when reading tags; be clear no matter what. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. I appreciate adjudicating debaters who are innovative in both strategy formation and execution.
Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The best constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I evaluate substantive arguments probabilistically: it would behoove debaters to utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if executed properly.
As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge of my age group. Extending the warrants, rhetoric, and context introduced in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. If its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, I will scrutinize evidence after the round, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that. Well-formatted evidence will be rewarded with excellent speaker points. Most analytics are incredibly shallow, but clever analytics can be persuasive.
I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. However, the burden of proof always comes before the burden of rejoinder. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out. If I have to, I will default my presumption in favor of the side that defends the less appreciable departure from the status quo. This is usually the negative in debates about the normative truth of the resolution, the side that violates the interpretation in theory debates, the affirmative in topical critical debates, etc.
Everything below is a non-exhaustive explanation of my views on specific arguments:
I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. I am not nearly as dogmatic as many other judges who arbitrarily presuppose a didactic framework for which case turns are legitimate. Especially in an activity where ‘technical’ debaters are unable to coherently explain why nuclear proliferation prompts immediate escalation, why economic growth assuages warmongering sentiment, or why global emissions circumvent adaptation, these arguments are excellent ways to force scrutiny onto the most uncomfortable corners of the constructive. I do not have any particular, similarly arbitrary ‘thresholds’ for how rigorously you must respond to these arguments. As with any other substantive strategy, evidence comparison, risk calculus, and judge instruction will win the round. Generally, if there is a well-established evidentiary base grounded in scientific and historical research behind your offense, then I am more than amenable.
I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are strategic. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. In a similar vein, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably invite intervention. As a side note, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach. I default epistemic confidence over epistemic modesty.
I am fine with debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to each part of the shell. Frivolous theory justifies frivolous speaker points. Harder presses on reasonability and ‘drop the argument’ can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense, and I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'; be willing to defend the violation.
I am at least vaguely familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding Capitalism, Biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), Security, International Relations (Feminist IR, Race IR), Settler Colonialism (Tuck & Yang), Disability Studies (Mollow, St. Pierre), Orientalism, Psychoanalysis, Afro-Pessimism (Wilderson), Fiat, and Death. I enjoy reading critical literature in my free time and actively think about these arguments the most, but I am far dumber than you might think.
You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my decision. Regardless, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal doc/backfile-botting. Corybantic bouts of incomprehensible philosophizing are difficult to flow, and strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating.
The best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize said criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Critiques that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive appeal and offense. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long, so (as with all arguments) critical debaters that simplify the round’s central controversy into a few lines of synthesis are significantly more likely to win.
I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives deploys the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly addresses the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear indication otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on the literature being cited and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof), with the latter informing its theoretical proximity to ‘counterplans.’
Finally, do not homogenize critiques. Not every critique functions as a ‘DA’, necessitates winning ‘out-of-round/ballot solvency’, criticizes ‘fiat’, or impacts ‘marginalized groups’. The distinction between ‘pre-fiat’ and ‘post-fiat’ is contrived and meaningless. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Read from cut cards and disclose when reading these arguments anyway. Impact turns, when morally applicable, are welcomed. I am waiting for debaters in this event to realize that strategic articulations of the ‘permutation double-bind’ and ‘links are non-unique’ are close to unbeatable.
Evenly debated, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, promote a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments, nor am I particularly less capable of adjudicating them, but I find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacy that is predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am relatively agnostic on questions relating to the best ways for debaters to respond. I have no major preference for fairness, clash, and skills-based impacts and am agnostic on questions relating to the relative persuasiveness of counter-interpretations, impact turns, impact comparison, etc. Well-researched method debates are highly encouraged, but I still do not understand why affirmatives do not double down on the permutation (and why negatives so carelessly disregard it). Finally, strictly pathos-based strategies are not a substitute for technical debating (copied from above). Many PF judges abandon the line-by-line and offense-defense paradigm in these debates; I am not one of them.
I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere. Ad hominem is a fallacy.
You're better off saving your 'tricks'—single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable—for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph). The same can be said for ‘independent voting issues’ that are neither independent nor voting issues.
Speaker points are a reflection of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency. Be a good person.
For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.
I currently do public forum for Bellaire High School. Feel free to ask me about anything that I don't cover in my paradigm, but I will be annoyed if you ask me about something that I already wrote about.
Add me to email chains: etang722@gmail.com
General:
tech > truth
argumentation/content > speaking
I prefer when people use email chains, otherwise it can be inefficient. I pref cut cards.
I'm familiar with debate jargon and I will vote off of the flow.
I am okay with speed, but keep in mind that I will be flowing on paper, so if you spread I might not catch everything you want me to (speech docs would be helpful).
I won't evaluate stuff in cross if you don't bring it up in speech. I'm fine with flex prep.
Clear signposting is really nice.
Please make clear extensions of warrants, not just card names.
I don't like when people doc bot. If you do, it won't factor into my decision for the round, but it might affect your speaks.
If you don't use all of your speech time, I will be very sad.
I don't recommend reading any super prog arguments in front of me.
I would not recommend reading disclosure theory in front of me.
If you run a structural violence case/fw, stick to it.
Don't be homophobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc., that will also cost you the round. Just be respectful.
PF:
Weighing is very helpful, I love it when you start to weigh in rebuttal (especially prereqs), but I will be sad if you only use buzzwords ("we outweigh on scope" without an actual explanation for HOW or WHY that's true).
Please frontline in second rebuttal.
I don't believe in sticky defense.
No new arguments starting from second summary.
If you want me to take an argument into account, you must extend it with warrants in summary and final.
I usually start at around 28.5 for speaks.
LD:
I'm not super familiar with LD, so I will probably evaluate it similarly to a PF round (read above). Weigh. Please.
Use your value/criterion.
For Context: I am a PF debater
General
If you are going to spread your case, please make sure I can still understand what you are saying. If you prefer to spread that is fine, just email me your case so I can follow along. In general add me to the email chain: pahthakur@gmail.com
Please signpost; it really helps me ensure I fully understand your case
I won't evaluate anything from cross unless it is brought up again.
Extend all of your arguments. Saying something without expanding on it is no use.
Be respectful. Interrupting during cross, etc. will lose you the round.
PF:
Weigh.
This and rebuttals are what I will be voting on the most. If you do not apply your argument to its effects, it does not matter.
Not responding = conceding
No new arguments/evidence from 2nd summary
LD:
I do not have much experience with LD. That being said, I will vote on K's and theory if you can convince me it works. Traditional rounds will be easier to follow but will not influence my voting if you run a K.
Value/Criterion
Things that can cost you the round/things to avoid: disrespectful behavior; condescension; non-topical arguments.
Framework: LD is a value debate. I will therefore determine whether to affirm or negate the Resolution based on how well your case upholds the value metric - value + value criterion. All else flows from here.
Case Structure: I expect a value, value criterion, and contentions. Observations are optional but if they are helpful, they are appreciated. Contentions should contain evidentiary warrants and clear impacts. I expect them to link back to your value and value criterion - I should not have to scrutinize my flow to figure out how your contentions are connected to the value metric.
Spreading: I appreciate that spreading is increasingly common in LD and I do not penalize competitors for engaging in the practice. That said, I expect everything to be well articulated and understandable. Persuasive argument stops the moment you value speed over comprehension. I expect clean and clear signposting throughout your case, particularly if you are engaging in spreading.
Flowing: I flow every case, and base my decision based on the flow. I appreciate that competitors may share their cases with each other and that this is increasingly common practice. However, my decision will be based on what happens in the round, not on the documents provided for my reading leisure.
Time: Please feel free to time yourselves. I am also happy to time y'all if you would prefer.
RFD: This will always come back to who fulfills the value metric best. I will also note that I personally put great emphasis on cross examination and rebuttal, as these extemporaneous moments often best display skill sets and thorough knowledge of case and material.
For PF-specific stuff scroll to the bottom.
-------------------------
Bach Tran (he/him)
Please add me to the email chain: [kienbtran1655(at)gmail(dot)com]
Seven Lakes '23
UT '27 (not debating)
-------------------------
Pref Shortcuts
Policy, Trad - 1
Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2
Dense Theory/Ks - 3
Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike
-------------------------
General Things
I vote for anything with a warrant and impact; tech>truth bar the exceptions below. My threshold for a warrant is lower than most and my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but the caveat is that the more ridiculous the claim the more "tech" you need to win it. That said, concessions matter only if there are implications to them made during the same speech.I have neither the capacity nor the will to connect the dots for you, so please collapse, do impact calc, compare arguments/ev, and have judge instruction or prepare for dissapointment.
In round-isms, illegal stuff, double wins, self-harm good, soliciting audience participation+other things that make the tabroom yell at me=L. Ad homs/other non-disclosure grievances are for the tabroom and not me to handle. Besides those, I will vote for whatever--wipeout, spark, the death K, etc. You are always free to object to whatever that is being read and call tab, but of course the tabroom will take some objections more seriously than others.
Please start email chains early and be ready to go at the start time.
Speed is fine but unclearness is not (will slow/clear you). Slow down on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. I will look at docs from time to time.
Speaker points: My current average is in the 28.8-29 range. You will do well if you are nice/technical/strategic. Timing/ev sharing/logistical shennanigans irritate me to to ends and will lead to below-par speaker points. Ask for a 30 and you'll get whatever I feel like giving (most likely not a 30).
Ethics challenges: Would prefer that you save them for serious things like clipping or malicious distortions. No take-back, winner(s) W30(s), loser(s) L0(s).
Rehighlights: yes inserts if less than a sentence and you explain what the inserts are about, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. This is very debatable.
-------------------------
Specific Arguments
Policy: I like people who know the topic lit and can weigh impacts. Also a big fan of impact turns/case-specific strategies. Zero risk probably exists but of course offense is always better. Good analytics > bad cards. Whatever terrorism you want to commit (condo, fiat abuse, intrinsicness, whatever) is fine unless there are theoretical objections. Slow down with the perm spamming/competition debate so I can keep up. Won't read your cards unless told to by the 2AR/2NR.
The K: Know the tl;dr version of most Ks (cap, set col, security, some pomo etc.). Please explain the theory and unpack the buzzwords. The best 2NRs explain what count as offense/uniquess/solvency for the K and weigh them against aff offense. LBL more, overview (yap) less. Framework: weighing plan is fine, rejecting reps is fine, embracing whatever also fine--debate it out. Slight bias towards the policy interps but out-teching the other team is more than sufficient.
Theory/T: Probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds (terrible flower). Please send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Defaults: DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs. Will vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. "[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.
K Affs: Do whatever if you can defend your 1AC but ideally aff teams should defend a change from the squo that is vaguely related to the topic. Please err on more explanation of the aff/method than less. Debate is probably a game. Impact turns or CIs is your choice, but "haha fairness bad" is probably unpersuasive. For KvK rounds, explain interactions between the K and the aff + how perms work because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.
Phil: Bad if you use this to deploy tricks. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.
Tricks: Probably quite bad for this (I would really rather not) but if you want to, feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.
Trad: I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue," "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE," and the like.
-------------------------
PF Stuff
Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I flow and vote by the flow so feel free to do whatever. See Bryce Piotrowski's paradigm for more details--I mostly agree with his takes.
Not sending ev/speech docs before speeches, Google Docs, cards in email body, making me find your paraphrased segment within a 78-page pdf=28 points ceiling. Made-up cards/ev fabrications=L0.
Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing bad, however, is almost a no go (just read cut cards...)
I am more than willing to evaluate progressive positions but if your A-strat is spamming dumb friv shells or whatever expect the bare minimum when it comes to responding. I also find appeals to PF "rules" (e.g. "you can't read Ks!" or "how dare you fiat an alternative") extremely unpersuasive. You can read whatever and do whatever as long as it is not in the list of stuff I won't vote on and/or something the tabroom forbids me to vote on. If the argument really is that bad you are much better off just beating it than complaining about it.
Prepositions are not taglines.
Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) and explaining them consistently matters, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should call out bad ev and ridiculous/new extrapolations in the back-half. This also applies to "link chains" (in quotes because PFers have no idea what a warrant is).
2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse. I don't know what "defense is sticky" means and at this point I don't even want to find out. Just extend whatever you want to go for in the back half.
Answering/impact-turning case in 2nd constructive=based+very high points.
I like warranted, comparative weighing. Link/internal link weighing matters. Judge instruction/warrants/examples are crucial in the backhalf. Condensing your offense down to 1-2 decisive issues greatly increases your chances of winning and make my life easier.
Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others.
Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.
Hi, I'm Bella and I compete in PF
Speaks - I am okay with most speeds, but please make sure you speak clearly on points you want me to take into consideration when flowing. Not a fan of spreading but as long as I can understand it's all good.
Weighing -I will most likely vote based on how well you weigh.
CX-I love a good Crossfire, keep it interesting and ask good questions!!
Environment-Try and keep the attitude of the round respectful. I understand that things can get heated but that is not an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponents.
Signpost - please update me where you are throughout the round, it's super helpful with flowing and keeping track of your arguments.
Warrants - Provide clear warrants that prove why your argument is true. Highlight these and make sure to extend them. Pointing out concession of warrants is a great strategy, but don't claim stuff that not conceded. It gets annoying.
Theory- if you're going to argue theory, please argue it well and keep it consistent. Don't bring in crazy theories that don't make any sense, I probably won't vote for you.
keep track of your own time please!! and have fun!
she/her
former pfer (bellaire LW)
add me to your email chain: audreyw8ng@gmail.com <-- also use this for questions before round if u have any
- title the email Round # and your school code (ex: R3 Bellaire LW or Semis Bellaire LW)
if ur not a pfer im lay
i have experience judging extemp but idk how great of an extemp judge i am tbh
for pf (u can also probably cross apply most of these things to ld too):
my paradigm is pretty similar to most bellaire pfers
tech > truth unless it's super dumb (the sky is most definitely not purple.)
i don't flow cross so if you want it to end up on my flow, bring it up in the next speech
historically, me not timing has been pretty problematic so i'll probably time you unless i'm super super tired and get lazy lolllll
there's no such thing as sticky defense. if it's dropped at any point i dont care anymore
extend and extend well
if it's not mentioned before or during first summary i will not evaluate it. anything new after second summary will NOT be evaluated (pf)
do not try to run 10 contentions and extend the ONE that ur opponent drops ... i will be very very sad
no tricks. by far the stupidest way to try and win.
probably don't read theory, especially disclo, or k's i'll probably not evaluate it the way you'd like me to
im pretty good with speed but please send speech doc if ur gonna spread
signpost (+ roadmap b4 speech)
warrant everything
be nice
weigh (+ warrant) + metaweighing is cool too
28 speaks is usually the default. 29 is common, but 30 is pretty rare. make me laugh or make a blackpink reference for a bump
no isms (racism, sexism, etc). no homophobia. no offensive things period. i will drop ur speaks and potentially down u for anything offensive.
don't run counterplans in pf........ i cannot evaluate it
flex prep is alright, but if ur opponent stalls up all your prep time by answering ur question slowly.. that's on you
love love love collapsing - i think it's super strategic and makes judging so so so much easier
try to preflow before round if flip is settled already (but i get it if u don't)
ask any questions before round if u have any
make the round fun for me to judge. i want to be interested
write my ballot for me, don't make me think too hard, i'm not too good at that
i understand tech problems, but i'm not gonna wait for 5 minutes for you to pull up a card, 2-3 minutes max (this is already generous honestly), everything after is a drop in speaks (.5 speaks every 10 extra seconds)
on the topic of cards... please have good evidence ethics. if ur opponent has bad evidence ethics call em out so i can check the card. i'll drop a card if u can tell me why the article/author is unreliable properly
don't post round me all night if i have another round/its late, i'll explain my decision but its final. if i messed up its lowkey on you for putting me in a position where i can mess it up
no offense in round = i presume neg unless told otherwise with warrants
if you made it to the bottom of my paradigm, tell me in the last few seconds of ur 2nd to last or last speech. i'll bump speaks
gl hf
I'm an LD debater just for context.
I'm fine with spreading, but that doesn't mean I will be able to understand every word you say. I do think it's better to not spread and focus on maximizing using your words to the greatest potential rather than maximizing how many words you say.
For LDers, I'm fine with traditional and progressive debates. I do think progressive cases are more interesting that traditional, but the preference won't weigh too much into my decision. It'll probably just affect how attentive I am during the round.
Last thing, but using cards in your rebuttals will help your case so much.