Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Kinkaid ‘23 Georgetown ‘27

Hi, I am Alexander Farahbod, I debated for The Kinkaid School in Houston for 3 years competing primarily in WSD, and am currently a disruptor in the tech industry. I specialize in advocating for Pluto’s reinclusion into the planetary list.

General Paradigm

---------------------------------------------

Stick to the basics

Oftentimes, people get lost in the weeds of debate land and forget the basic style of argumentation.

BE COMPARATIVE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

If there is one thing to take from my paradigm, it's this. Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world. Explaining this clearly is such an essential part of good debates; this needs to be a priority in all speeches.

Speed

This is not a formula one race; you are not Max Verstappen; please slow down.

Clash

Do it. It's never fun to watch a debate over the framework where whatever interpretation I buy automatically wins the round. Attempt to resolve FW disputes early to get to the content/heart of the debate as quickly as possible.

General Argumentation

I highly value different types of principles or arguments that aren't necessarily “common” but instead are creative enough that they make the round different and interesting. Please be creative—pretend this is your final project of your art major—you need creativity.

Have Fun

As a debater, I used to have a visceral reaction when I read “Have fun!” in paradigms because I thought debate was only fun if I won. Please try to ahve fun and learn from the experience in round even if you do not win!

WSD Technical Paradigm

___________________________

Style Notes

Style may be only 20 percent of the ballot officially, but in my heart, it's more than that. The joy that courses through my cerebral cortex from the influx of dopamine when I hear a funny one-liner or flowery rhetoric is unparalleled. I live for this hit of dopamine.

Strategy

In my opinion, strategy breaks down into two things, First is team cohesion which is having a common theme and narrative throughout all 4 speeches. Being on the same page in terms of how you explain/extend arguments is also extremely underrated in WSD and makes your team appear significantly stronger. Second is smart collapses into the 3s and replies. Making sure you're identifying your strongest path to the ballot and capitalizing on it is also an essential part of team strategy.

Content

I will vote on the least mitigated claim warrant data and impact that is extended down the bench.

One thing I have noticed in Worlds is that debaters tend to agree with impacts like climate change being necessary and just completely concede the impact level so they can fight over the link level. With that being said, fighting over the impact level is something you should be doing frequently and something I will reward as a judge.

I value organized speeches!!! Messy speeches = sad Farahbod = under 70 speaks. Ways to make sure your speech is organized: first enumerate your responses; second signpost your arguments; and third condense into clash points.

I would MUCH rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. Please have offense. I want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

Principle debates: If it becomes a practical v. principle debate, I'm expecting A LOT of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. I'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). For instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!—ik that Georgetown education pulling through). I love creative principles and creative impacts here.

Model debates: Both models and countermodels need to be characterized from the start. Teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with key stakeholders. Prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where I usually see prop fail). Opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model AND why it is preferable.

If the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish first what in the wording of the motion grants you a model and second why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). Regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, I will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

Hi my name is Fadilat (she/her). I do have experience competing and judging in Congress and WSD and some judging experience in LD but I'm still pretty new to judging.

These paradigms are for WSD but a lot can apply across different events.

I don't like to set too many rules or restrictions for my rounds. My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and they can be mostly overridden by good debating. So don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, please be mindful of arguments made, I want everyone to feel safe and respected here.

But here are my 3 main things for the round:

1. Etiquette: Be courteous to your fellow debaters. I won't tolerate rudeness or discrimination. Be mindful of the arguments you run and how you conduct yourself in the room. I am unlikely to vote for someone that yells at their opponents, yells at me about their opponents, makes rude or overly aggressive comments, or runs an argument that is offensive or discriminatory. Ultimately be nice, debate is not that deep even though it may seem like it sometimes. Don't ruin a round/tournament for someone else who will remember your rudeness.
2. Speed: I place high importance on the pacing of speeches because to me it’s not how much you’ve said but really the clarity and depth of what you have spoken that’s really going to sway my decision. If what you're saying isn’t clear enough to be understood, chances are, I didn’t catch that argument. Follow this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you probably are. WSD is about style which involves how you present the content you have and it should be able to be judged by the "average educated citizen" so please do me and yourself a favor and speak at a good pace. Talking too fast is bad stylistically and strategically. I want to be able to hear your argument because that’s what I’m here for.
3. Above all have fun