2nd Annual Season Championship
2023 — Online, US
World Schools Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hey everyone, if you're reading this chances are I'm probably judging you so here some things I generally value in rounds. This will mostly apply to WSD as it was my event of choice for 4 years.
Things that make my job hard:
- Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
- Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
If this happens, I need reasons as to why I should prefer one interpretation over the other. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening.
Things that make my job easy:
- Clearly identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those clashes.
- Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of layered 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 better than your opposition esp. in the case where there are shared impacts which happens more often than not simply due to the nature of WSD.
- Weigh impacts if they are differentiated.
- Be strategic. Don't carry down an unwarranted framing debate to the third speeches 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 ridiculous, I'll buy the ref coming from O1, it doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning towards it anyway. Don't overcompensate! Good judge direction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.
A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with from me. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that you probably won't like.
I'm not super authoritarian when it comes to style. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. I think the most refined speeches are a combination of content, strategy, and style, but I’d pivot more towards content and strategy rather than semantics and rhetoric.
True Principle Arguments are fun to see in action but they need to be properly extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll just have a spot on the flow of a principle that was well established but poorly leveraged against other arguments. p.s. not enough to just say the principle matters more, there's need to be analysis i.e. if you're running a reparations argument examples of weighing line(s) could be:
- Practical benefits that place X group of people secondary are immoral because of the unique historical injustice committed against them (urgency)
- We ought to fulfill this principle because of this specific condensed harm that has affected a population for decades vs a marginal harm that affects people temporarily (intensity of harm)
all and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun
if you have questions you can reach me at email@example.com
Worlds School's Debate
This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.
I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.
It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.
I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho
I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good
If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry
Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.
My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,
My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.
In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.
Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.
I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.
I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.
I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.
Just be clear and loud
Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death - this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.
Speech & style: I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools - I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.
No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.
Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis.
I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!
Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.
Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.
A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.
To be honest I rank POs in final rounds kind of differently. I don't think most POs deserve to champ unless they do something especially useful or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I'm more inclined to give POs the 1 in non-final rounds.
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.
Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.
Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.
I see all the politicking for what it really is
I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will.
I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)
Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards.
have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)
Hey guys! I'm Jake (he/him), rising junior with 20+ tournaments of experience in WSD, and a proud member of the USA Development Team (reigning world champions!!!)
I think that World Schools should be a fairly intuitive event, so don't try too hard to adapt to me as a judge and do what you're most comfortable with. With that said, a few minor preferences for Worlds debates:
- Style is irrelevant to me so long as I can understand you with one exception: I really appreciate adding humor to rounds and I will be happy to bump you up a speaker point or two for a very well-delivered joke.
- I'm not a fan of washing clashes out: I generally tend to think that one of the two sides is ahead in nearly every issue. This also means that if you clearly outline your paths to the ballot, you've probably won my vote.
- I don't buy the strategy of example-spamming (or "example tennis" as Alex Lee puts it), I almost always prefer a well-explained warrant even if there are multiple examples going against it. I mainly use examples as deadlock breakers between two equally sound lines of reasoning.
- I'm cool with you not running third subs, I really don't like running them most of the time. If you want me to vote off a third sub, it has to either change my perspective on the debate or turn the core of your opponent's case.
- I don't value principle over practical or vice versa by default, if you're winning on one and losing on the other explain to me why I should prefer the one you're winning.
Most importantly, MAKE SURE YOU'RE ENJOYING YOUR DEBATES!!! The philosophy of my coaches on USA Dev was that a competition is a success so long as you had fun and learned something: I didn't listen to that and learned the hard way what overcompetitiveness does (I burned out hard during second semester.) Don't feel pressured to win any rounds or upset because you didn't. Ultimately, the only reason why you're doing debate is because you enjoy it: make sure that doesn't change. Good luck and have fun!