Tabroom.com

Katy Taylor TFA TOC NIETOC Fall Classic

2023 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nibhan Akbar Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 11:44 PM CST

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Jazmine A Alejos Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 12:16 PM CST

** side notes from judge

DEBATE:

Speed

I do not like speed I do prefer a pace where all judges and contestants can understand as well, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you did not make it to the ballot, however I will still try to keep up. Therefore, keep in mind mumbling the word is NOT saying the word so if I say CLEAR -> it means that make sure that each word is being pronounced correctly. The word LOUD means speech a bit louder to hear you.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win.

Speaker Points

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

29-30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies. 30 usually goes to the contestant that kept it professional from the beginning to the end of the round

**Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally un-responded to but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

Al Arthur Concord Carlisle High School 6 rounds

Chris Arthur Concord Carlisle High School 6 rounds

Justus Awolu William B. Travis High School 4 rounds

Shaveta Bansal Dulles High School 2 rounds None

Rawan Barazi Hire 6 rounds

Nymrata Bickici MB Independent 2 rounds None

Shawn Book Jordan High School 6 rounds None

Joelle Bowers Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Andrew Burgos Elkins High School 6 rounds

Carrie Carman Arlington High School 2 rounds

lucy cerda Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 1:26 PM EST

Attended Nationals and District Finalist for PF

finaled in extemporaneous speaking

PF/ LD

Don’t be afraid to ask questions or for clarity from me, I will not mark you down for it.

I lean more towards Tech, but make sure to back up your arguments effectively. No vague link chains please, I will pay attention to how well you explain them. I consider the validity of your arguments, but the biggest focus for me in round will be your impacts. Focus a lot on weighing and not dropping your arguments, this is almost an automatic vote for the other team.

This is not Policy, you should not be spreading to the point you are difficult to understand. Despite the fact that I can understand spreading, If you need to speak 100 miles per second it tells me that your contentions in themself are not that strong. Faster speaking is OKAY , I can understand a faster pace but please keep it to an understandable speed so I can fairly and effectively judge your arguments. I do listen to cross, but I don’t cross apply it to your arguments made during speeches so sure to touch on it or it will not be counted.

Make sure to address the judge throughout the round. You are trying to convince me, not the other team. They are not going to concede mid-round that you are right and switch sides.

I am okay with spectators but keep in mind that they are your responsibility and will reflect on your speaks. They should be absolutely quiet throughout the entire round, including prep time.

Be assertive but not agressive during Cross and keep it respectful. There is a fine line between debating and just being plain rude. Your attitude will reflect on your speaks as well.

I will remain relatively uninvolved during the round as I am taking critiques on each of your speeches, but clarify beforehand if you would like me to keep time, otherwise it will be up to you.

Speech Events

I pay attention to variation in tone, fluctuation in movements, appropriate changes in volume. Avoid taking excessively long pauses and remaining monotone throughout your entire speech. Keep movements understandable and relevant.

I am ok with spectators, but you are responsible for making sure that they are quiet throughout the entire round and it will reflect on your points. I rank you higher based on the believability of your performance.

Good luck in your rounds!

Cameron Chacon Wayzata 3 rounds

Michael Chaisanguanthum CK Independent 6 rounds None

Feng Chen Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Sophie Contaldi Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 6:50 AM EST

Hi! If you couldn't tell from the length of my paradigm I'm a d1 yapper. I don't expect you to read all of this. Read some of the bolded general stuff, scroll down to your event and read some of the bolded stuff there, and you read into any sections that you're specifically curious about. If you dont know what something means you can probably skip over it because 99% of the time it wont apply to you, and I promise im not going to judge you crazy hard lol. Low key the main reason this is so long is for the bit because I think its funny for people to pull up my paradigm and get hit with an actual novel of information.

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

Who am I? (And non-humble brag)

Hi! You might have wondered who would actually write a research paper length paradigm for a silly extracurricular. I'm Sophie. I do debate because I actually enjoy it. If you could show an ounce of not hating this activity I would appreciate it. As for what i've done in this activity, I was a national qualifier in PF in 2024 and third in the district in LD, please interpret that as you will. I have also done 9 events, and have broken in 6 of them while only being a place away from breaking in the other three. Those events are DX, IX, LD, PF, CX, extemp debate, prose, impromptu and Congress. I have competed in a debate tournament basically every week for the last 2 years during the school year. If you couldn't tell from the specificity I put in some events and not others, I for sure prefer debate over speech, but still enjoy both. I am also a junior right now.

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

General info:

The only thing I HATE about debate is how rude people get sometimes. I will always stand by the fact that it is almost impossible for me to side with/rank people who are disrespectful or rude. BE NICE. I hate clique-y and exclusionary behavior, and I think acting pretentious is cringe. Let yourself have some fun with your round, I promise im not gonna down you for it. If I think you were being rude I am not above giving you last/voting against you REGARDLESS of how well you were doing. Do not yell, do not belittle, don't scoff, or anything else that is generally disrespectful. It doesn't make me agree with you more. You can be aggressive without being rude.

If you bring spectators into the round, YOU are responsible for them. I suggest that you and your spectators read this next part very carefully if you plan to bring them in. If for any reason your spectator needs to leave, it HAS to be done during a natural break in the round. In traditional debate events, this is prep. For Congress this is recess or following a competitor out the door who called for a point of personal privilege. In speech, this is between speeches. If you have already left, please dont try to come back in unless you have friends who can tell you that it's a good time and open the door for you quietly. Please ask the people who are about to compete if spectators are okay. If they say no, I would appreciate you respect that. I wont ever down you for denying spectators. Competitors get to find their seats before spectators. Then, I prefer if spectators stay as far out of the line of sight of the competitors as possible (preferably you sit behind them). From this point on, I should barely be able to tell spectators are present. I reserve the right to bump down your speaks or even your rank in extreme cases if you bring in people who are disruptful. They should be totally silent the ENTIRE round, including prep time. They can get on their phones, but no computers please (to minimize cheating). If a spectator starts making someone uncomfortable, I encourage the person affected to ask them to stop. I think spectating is a great thing but it shouldn't ever come at the expense of the people actually competing.

My policy on cheating? Pls dont. If I find out about cheating, I will report it to tab and talk to your coach, and neither of us wanna deal with that. I literally hate cheating. It's happened so many times in my rounds and there was nothing I could do about it. I am incredibly petty about it so I will absolutely take cheating seriously. If you're texting, i'm going to assume it's about the round (and I generally dont like you using your phone for non-competitve reasons anyways....google snake exists guys and it's a lot more respectful). You will get all of 1 reminder to stay off of your phone unless youre using it to help in the round (example: timing) before I affect your speaks or your rank. If you're citing evidence that makes a claim I dont buy, ill look it up. If you try to prep scum ill run your prep clock and not tell you about it until the next time you try to take prep.

I will disclose and or give a verbal RFD if you ask me to, but only if my ballot is already submitted. I am more than happy to answer questions, but please don't start arguing with me. That's not cool and also my ballot will already be submitted anyways. If i'm on a panel, I will disclose if the other members of the panel are willing to. This is subject to change as per different tournament regulations.

I usually like to let the round flow, but there are a few instances where, whether it be because I literally cant judge you effectively or because you're doing something I really REALLY hate, I stop evaluating. I will make it as OBVIOUS as possible if this happens. If I cant understand you, ill yell out clear. If you start running something like a cap K in PF or disclosure in LD, I will very loudly drop my pen until you stop before I begin flowing again. Please just try to fix the issue and ill resume whatever action shows you i'm paying attention after.

While I do try to time everything myself, PLEASE keep time for yourselves and your competitors. Try to start your timer on a stagger from the opponent's first word. If your opponent goes over, yell out “time!” if you're sure they're over. Im including IEs cuz it's so rampant there lol. Do note that if MY timer says they still have time, ill let them continue and reimburse them the time. If youre doing extemp or an IE, I can time and do signals but if someone else could that would be sick.

I call everyone I interact with queen, girl, girly, and other terms like that regardless of gender or age (my poor debate coaches will tell you). Please let me know if this language makes you uncomfortable because if not its pretty standard for me.

Im a junior and thus ONLY judge novices. I wont down you for not following a perfect varsity standard. I will critique you based on your level. I will make sure your opponents arent doing anything crazy above your level. You should be using these years not only to learn but to have some fun in this activity.

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

PF specific stuff

Theres a reason why this is first- it's because I LOVEEEE PF. Out of all 8 events ive done, this is by far my fav.

General debate stuff:

Just a little rule of mine, you should be able to back up your cards with analysis on why they're true. If your only ability to explain your nuclear war impact is a card from 1969 that says that if roach populations increase by 1% then Russia is going to nuke the entire world with NO EXPLAINABLE REASONING behind it, I am totally going to buy it if your opponent says that because you can't explain it, it doesn't happen.This kind of just links to me wanting you to actually understand your reasoning. Not everything is about cards. It's okay to let go of the block files and actually DEBATE the other team with analysis. MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL LINK CHAINS OF ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS!!

Please please PLEASEEEE try to stay consistent with your partner. I cant evaluate your arguments if you're operating on two entirely different keys.

You dont have to ask me to take prep but you do have to let me know when you start it, when you end it, and how much youve taken.

Heres how I rank the importance of things on my ballot, from most important to least

Weighing: This will go to how well your arguments develop through the round. Having a good impact will be the way to win this one. Please do not be afraid to weigh and call out specifically what the most important arguments in the round are and why. Unless your opponent attacks this and tells me to prioritize other arguments, if this goes conceded ill rank the importance of arguments in the order you told me to. Explain what my ballot should look like and why.

What I actually buy: This is about how your argument actually stands in the round. A solid link chain and good responses to opponents will win you this. I can buy any argument if it has a good link chain, but its not all about who can get the nuclear war impacts first as well. Make sure it makes sense, and spend time with extending it if you think its necessary for me to understand. If your opponent doesnt call out the fact that your link chain isnt believable, then I will probably still evaluate it.

Argumentation: This is more the general skill of both debaters. Being able to effectively respond and structure your speeches, as well as efficient use of time is how you get this one.

Respectfulness: I severely dislike disrespect in the debate space. Debate is fun if you let it be fun. Ive already gone into this earlier though. Just generally be nice to your opponent. In extreme cases, even if you” win” the round, if you're not respectful you're getting a loss. Be nice.

Speaks stuff

I will give out speaker points starting at a 28.

To raise speaks) Effective use of time, respectfulness, being clear, having good link chains, effectively responding to arguments, good weighing, and good etiquette are all good ways to raise your speaks

To lower speaks) Basically the opposite of the raising speaks. Being disrespectful is almost an automatic 26 or 25.

Specific round stuff (quick to read so you might wanna)

The second rebuttal responds to the opponent's case and also the first rebuttal. If they don't, then the first speakers have every right to claim their responses as dropped.

If you're doing the coin flip the other side calls. You need to flip where the other side can see it clearly. I prefer you flip in front of me, but if not its okay. Im also okay with holding the flip. I also prefer you flip via google or Siri rather than a physical coin.

Please be respectful in grand cross. I know its easy to get carried away, but, if you're able to control it that reflects positively on you as a speaker. Feel free to gentle parent the other team because I do that too lol. Just dont be bellittling.

First speaker gets first questioning priority unless they dont want it.

Extensions are okay but not really necessary for me. I've already heard your case. If you have a confusing link chain and want to use it to clarify thats fine.

Cross is listened to but will not count unless its brought up in your speeches that come immediately after.

60% argumentation 30% speaking

The best type of cases follow a uniqueness solvency and impact format.

I literally could not care less if you sit or stand so you dont have to ask me.

If you sneak a Chappell Roan reference in there somewhere ill give you an extra 0.1 speaking point. If its an obscure reference ill give you +0.2

Topic specific

I low key dont know anything about the topic soooooo sorry

If you're one of those and youre trying to do something not standard (most can skip)

Spreading:Yeah no spreading please. I have done policy before, so I know that talking fast isnt inherently spreading. You can talk fast if your opponent is okay with it. I classify spreading as anything that requires a speech doc to understand. That being said, in PF I will NOT hop on any speech drops/ email chains. Yall feel free to set those things up between each other though.

Progressive argumentation (like K's):I've done enough policy to know it when I see it, and I am not going to evaluate it if I do. Please for the love of god stay mostly topical. Progressive arguments are not arguments that lean left by the way, they're a specific brand of debate specific arguments and if you don't know what im talking about skip over this. Progressive argumentation is the reason why traditional debate events are dying, because novices genuinely cannot keep up with them. No K’s, counterplans, or anything that might at all strike you as an argument that doesn't relate to the topic directly. If you start talking about a communist revolution I will literally explode. Its PF. ON CASE ONLY.

Theory: Girl im not gonna vote for you because the other team didnt give you all of their arguments before round. That destroys clash. I am also not going to vote for you because the other team didnt read out the qualifications of their authors or some other random thing that isnt standard. If you even try to read one of these not only is my pen going down but i'm submitting my ballot for the other side, closing my computer, and taking a nap. Unless its reasonable dont bother.

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

LD specific stuff

I have only ever competed in one LD tournament, but that tournament did get me into regionals for LD. That said, you can probably assume I'm familiar with HOW to debate and clash everything, but I probably won't remember some of the structural things like timing on my own.

General debate stuff:

Just a little rule of mine, you should be able to back up your cards with analysis on why they're true. If your only ability to explain your nuclear war impact is a card from 1969 that says that if roach populations increase by 1% then Russia is going to nuke the entire world with NO EXPLAINABLE REASONING behind it, I am totally going to buy it if your opponent says that because you can't explain it, it doesn't happen. This kind of just links to me wanting you to actually understand your reasoning. Not everything is about cards. It's okay to let go of the block files and actually DEBATE the other team with analysis. MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL LINK CHAINS OF ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS!!

You dont have to ask me to take prep but you do have to let me know when you start it, when you end it, and how much youve taken.

Heres the order of significance I use as a guideline to judge.

Weighing: This will go to how well your arguments develop through the round. Having a good impact will be the way to win this one. Please do not be afraid to weigh and call out specifically what the most important arguments in the round are. Unless your opponent attacks this and tells me to prioritize other arguments, if this goes conceded ill rank the importance of arguments in the order you told me to. Explain what my ballot should look like and why.

What I actually buy: This is about how your argument actually stands in the round. A solid link chain and good responses to opponents will win you this. I can buy any argument if it has a good link chain, but its not all about who can get the nuclear war impacts first as well. Make sure it makes sense, and spend time with extending if you think its necessary for me to understand. If your opponent doesnt call out the fact that your link chain isnt believable, then I will probably still evaluate it.

Argumentation: This is more the general skill of both debaters. Being able to effectively respond and structure your speeches, as well as efficient use of time is how you get this one.

Speaks stuff

I will give out speaker points starting at a 28.

To raise speaks) Effective use of time, respectfulness, being clear, having good link chains, effectively responding to arguments, good weighing, and good etiquette are all good ways to raise your speaks

To lower speaks) Basically the opposite of the raising speaks. Being disrespectful is almost an automatic 26 or 25.

Specific round stuff (quick to read so you might wanna)

Value debate kind of defines everything for me. I will weigh arguments under whatever fw I buy the most. Clash under frameworks matters a lot, but don't be afraid to concede your opponents fw or weigh your arguments under both.

I really dont mind skipping cross if you dont know what to ask. It doesnt reflect poorly on you as a speaker.

LD is values based. Unless you're spreading, I wanna see some conviction in your voice.

If your value or value criteria is something obscure, define it. Like girl idk what pragmatism means and I am not looking it up.

Respect in this event is EXTREMELY important since it's just two of yall.

Speech 30% content 70%

I literally couldnt care less if you sit or stand.

If you sneak a Chappell Roan reference in there somewhere ill give you an extra 0.1 speaking point. If its an obscure reference ill give you +0.2

Topic specifics

I have not debated, prepped cases, or even researched the topic that much. Assume unless something is super baseline that I dont know about it.

If you're one of those and youre trying to do something not standard (most can skip)

In terms of what I allow in round, it totally depends on what your opponents are okay with. As long as your opponents clear you on things like talking fast or using a lot of jargon, then im cool with it too. There are a few things that I want to specifically address because whether or not I want to admit it, LD is more mixed with policy then I might want it to be.

Spreading: Spreading is something that I will ONLY allow if both sides THOROUGHLY understand what it is and have come into contact with it before. I want your opponent to understand exactly what it is they're signing up for. I will have the final say in whether or not I think spreading is allowed, even if your opponent says it's okay. IF you are allowed to, then make sure that if you're doing analysis you slow down at those points/ include it in the doc. Also please try to be quick with your doc shares, if you start trying to get extra prep in while you're “sharing” im gonna run your prep clock until the document is sent, and you wont know that until the next time you take prep. I prefer speech drop, but if we must do an email chain for whatever reason, add meon at sophie.contaldi@gmail.com

Progressive argumentation: Very similar stipulations to spreading. Your opp needs to really KNOW what they're getting themselves into. If you both agree on it and I approve it, then you need to make sure I understand everything you're running. If you're running anything especially nuts, please spend time explaining it to me. I have done a lot of policy so dont worry about the basic off like cap k's, but if I dont understand it I just wont evaluate it. Also you get 4 off (including case) before I put my head down and drop my pen, so be very intentional with what you decide to run. If you run any more and I literally hear the word CONDO from the other side my ballot is made for me.

Theory: Girl im not gonna vote for you because the other team didnt give you all of their arguments before round. That destroys clash. I am also not going to vote for you because the other team didnt read out the qualifications of their authors or some other random thing that isnt standard. If you even try to read one of these not only is my pen going down but im submitting my ballot for the other side, closing my computer, and taking a nap. Unless its reasonable please just dont bother.

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

Extemp specific stuff

Extemp is something I enjoy because I like yapping. It's also a lot simpler then debate so this section is probably gonna move by a little fast.

Give me your topic slip whenever you enter the room. If im in a panel read the topic out and give it to one of us. If you dont then ill have to go talk to tab to make sure your topic actually existed and thats a whole thing that neither of us wanna deal with.

Try to state the topic verbatim but im not gonna crucify you if you dont. Especially if your topic is like 2 sentences long.

Try to answer the ENTIRE question in your responses.

If your topic isnt something super-duper obvious please give me some background. Im gonna be so for real, im a little uninformed with more obscure news stuff lol.

3 reasons, and please make sure to clearly illustrate where you are in your speech via signposting and using the speakers triangle

I like silly AGD's and I dont care if theyre canned. Dont feel pressured though, if you cant think of one then background works just fine.

Dont let fluency breaks throw you off. Im not going to sit here and tally them or anything. If you get tripped up, restart your sentence. If you forget what you're saying, pause for a second. Im not gonna crucify you for it.

3-6 sources, but I heavily prefer 6. AT least 1 per reason, but 2 per reason is better.

I like the structure of explaining your point and then explaining how it connects back to your prompt and/or the impact of it.

Make sure you relate each point back to the topic CLEARLY. They should all be answers to your topic, not background or something that isnt an answer.

I'm more left leaning, but I will buy anything as long as the linkchain is reasonable and it's not discriminatory. Basically, you dont have to try to gamble to make your speech support my political views. Just be respectful and avoid extremely sensitive topics when you can.

As for time signals, I will do my best but sometimes I get too lost in the speech. If you bring in spectators who can give signals for me that would be sick.If not I got it, but id prefer you just use the standard 3 down first at grace.

If you want to gear a specific part of your speech towards me more, I really like Chappell Roan and would think it was hilarious if you brought her up. I dont care if the reference is obscure.

I believe it's important to explain how I rank speakers, so here's my system: The first speaker automatically receives a ranking of 1. When the second speaker presents, they start with a 2. If I think they performed better than the first speaker, I'll move them up to the 1 position. The third speaker starts with a 3. If they perform better than the person ranked at 2, they can swap places—and this swapping continues as needed based on each speaker's performance. I will continue this pattern until everyone has spoken, swapping out speakers accordingly. I find this approach to be the fairest because it ensures that earlier speakers aren't overlooked, even after a long session.

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

Congress:

Congress is real debate. You actually have to debate if you want to do well. I will have 2 parts of this, 1 for PO’s and one for actual competitors. You only have to read the part that correlates with you.

PO rules

Hi! If you're planning to PO, read this VERY carefully. Im not gonna bold any parts of this because you should be reading all of it anyways. The only exception is if youre POing because nobody else would. You are almost guaranteed to break/do well if that is the case and I wont be so stingy. If that is NOT you however, im probably your least favorite type of judge. Maybe get a pen and some paper idk because I have a lot of standards.

My personal opinion is that it should be the job of the parli to PO, NOT the competitors. I do not think it is at all fair to evaluate someone who reads a spreadsheet and bangs a gavel above people who not only prepared speeches, but actually got up and gave them and then responded to questions about it. Be aware that unless you are PO because literally nobody else would, you have to actually try and do well at it to get ranked. You're not getting an automatic break. I will give you the 9 as a PO if I feel like you deserve it. You're only going to break if you are exceptional at POing, and even then, the highest ill give you is a 3. That being said, heres a few standards to follow: Please read the legislation to me unless I specifically ask you not to. Sometimes I am not already educated about what the legislation actually is. During recess, if I ask you to explain a bill, you should be able to do that. ESPECIALLY if we are in prelims.

Go over gavelling procedures before the round begins, even if it's on your spreadsheet. If you need to randomize names bring your computer over to me while you do it so I can make sure it's actually random

I dont mind skipping unneccesary formalities (ex: docket nomination when theres a set docket)

You should have near perfect speed and correctness if you want to break to finals. Keep the chamber in order but dont be petty/rude. It's obvious when you're repeating rules to keep the chamber in order and whenever you're repeating the obvious to be petty, ESPECIALLY if they offense was clearly a mistake and not them actually not knowing about the rules.

Unless for some reason you ABSOLUTELY have to PO on paper, PO online. I hate paper PO. If the wifi is out and you have to paper PO, then you have to sit next to me so I can look over it. Your competitiors are also allowed to look at it any time in the round as long as there isnt a speech going on. If your chamber doesnt call you out for mistakes, I will if I notice them. Also if someone is trying to tell you that you messed up on something that you noticed later then dont talk over them to say "oh yeah I noticed." before they can tell you what you did. That doesnt make you look better to me, it just irritates everyone in the round. I will welcome the competitors to call you out for mistakes you made a few cycles back, but you dont have to fix them if itll take a bunch of time. You can make mistakes and still break, so dont just give up.

You’re also not always ready. Give an indication each time because sometimes POs say theyre always ready and they definently arent. If youre not ready I wont down you for saying it unless it gets excessive. If I find out you said you were ready when you werent you're getting the 9.

Remind me every hour to mark you as a speaker. If you dont then youre probably not going to rank very high, and if you do every hour you missed is automatically going to go in as 1 point. If youre a little off im not gonna be like really annoying so just try to be like within 30 mins of the most recent hour passed.

Also DONT SLAM YOUR GAVEL unless you absolutely have to get the chambers/ speakers attention, not only is it distracting but it gets annoying. You can just TAP IT. Theres no reason why I should be flinching in the last 10 seconds of someones speech because youre hitting the table with the gavel so hard it sounds like youre trying to break it.

You need to call for authors, sponsors, and then first affs in that order. Too many PO’s try to skip some of those.

I also appreciate it whenever a PO shows that theyre engaged in round like saying "I guess we'll never know if xyz" when questioning elapses. Try to be at least a little aware of what is happenining during round.

If you're on your phone for anything other than using it to help you PO or during a recess you're getting the 9.

Again, you can still make mistakes and break. If you know how many breaks there are please let me know that too. I don't like POs but I understand it is a necessary evil.

Actual competitor guidelines

General stuff

Be respectful. This is not the set of mean girls, and I am not above giving someone who could've been a first place speaker the 9 because they were being rude. As someone who has competed in almost every event, this is where people get THE MEANEST and I HATE that.

Try to keep it down. Dont scream over everyone to try to get your point across. You do not run the chamber, and youll find out pretty early into reading my paradigm that trying to run the chamber by forcing other people to be quiet is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Kind of related to the last one, please dont be rude to compete for attention. Like if someone wants to run splits and you take the marker from them, that makes me notice you sure but its not in a favorable way. Dont yell over everyone to get your opinion out first. I also hate the whole "lets let people who spoke this number of times/ this recent speak first!" Precedence is there for a reason. If they want to speak, they can stand. If somebody gets disadvantaged by precedence ill notice it. Dont make the whole round Awkard and janky. You're a competitor, not a babysitter. Dont take it upon yourself to run the entire chamber by yourself if other people are trying to be active too.

It's not always about trying to get out of round as quickly as possible. Dont cut people who still have speeches they want to give off at mid cycle because youve already given your speech and you dont care anymore. I actually love debate, so at the very least just PRETEND you want to be there. Also, each person should get at least the chance of two speeches. If that doesnt happen youre probably gonna get called back into round by tab and nobody wants to deal with that.

Tell me your name TWICE in your walk up. Then just face your placard towards your opponents so clash is easier.

I pay attention to precedence, and I can tell if you're getting screwed by it. I will adjust my rankings accordingly if that's the case. If youre standing up and not getting to speak until last, ill notice it. I will tend to rank people who speak sooner above those who speak later (unless the reason you weren't speaking was precedence based). I think people who prep deserve higher ranks then people who read the legislation when theyre in the room.

I will be for real, its hard to stay focused the whole 3 hours. Please try to stay engaging. I prefer humor in speeches but seriousness also works. Make any pop culture references you want. Just try to be unique.

I am not always ready so ask for an indication. Get creative with how you ask for it, I dont really mind.

If the PO made a mistake a few questions/speeches ago still call it out even if you noticed it later/ there's nothing they can do to fix it.

50/50 on speech and content.

If I have trouble buying the link chain of your evidence, ill look your evidence up. If I dont find it then im gonna report it to tab. Your opponents do not have time to look up everybodys sources, so they're trusting you to be honest. Please dont fake evidence. Thats a headache neither of us wanna deal with.

Make a Chappell roan reference and ill give you 1 extra point on your speech. It will not affect my rankings in any way and its only valid for 1 speech, but I think its funny.

How I rate different types of speeches

Sponsor/Author: When you give one of these speeches, the bill automatically “becomes” YOUR bill. You should be reoccuring throughout the round. Your speech should have argumentation, but it should also do a good job at explaining what the bill actually is. Tell me why your bill is necessary, tell me what it solves, and how it solves it. I should be learning the majority of what ill hear about the bill from you. I should know exactly what the bill says without even reading it following your speech. A sponsor/author should look very different from a first aff. Youre introducing it and setting the grounds for the aff arguments to follow. Basically, I should know exactly what the bill is, what it does, and why its important by the end of your speech.

First neg: You're going to be setting up the neg for the rest of the debate. Clash direcly with the first aff, and explain why either the bill doesnt solve or why the world would be negatively impacted upon passage.

First half of aff or neg speakers: You can bring up new arguments, but at this point, you should be responding to and clashing with other speakers. However, I prefer no clash as opposed to rehash. This means that if your side already responded to an argument and you have no way to add onto that constructively, just skip it. If you're talking about similar arguments to speakers who came up prior to you, either put a different spin on them, add onto what the other speaker said constructively, or otherwise just dont read the argument as well. A shorter speech time will look better to me than straight up repitition by far.

Midrounder: Girl if you can pull off an effective midrounder ill give you the 1. I have only seen 1 good midrounder speech, and it was by the person who won nationals, toc, and a bunch of college tournaments. I also dont need to see a midrounder in a round just because it's super complex. In basic terms, a midrounder changes what the debate is about. It's like “we have seen these issues but we have missed a much bigger issue.” I dont even know how to explain how to do it because not even im at that level lol.

Clash rebuttals: Please try to bring something constructive to the debate. Probably no new arguments at this point (unless you got bad precedence and thats why you're giving a speech here), but build on old ones and start establishing why your ballot gets secured in the aff/neg. Think of your side like a team. Youre trying to use what everyone else has been doing to score a point for them,

Crystal: The majority of people who crystal read the bills for the first time in the room. Thus, crystals are going to be judged very harshly. You need to talk about all of the key points in the round on BOTH sides, weigh, and explain why your side wins. Like the last speech in CX LD or PF.

How I evaluate questioning:

Responding to questions: I will score your speech on a x.5 scale (so like a 1.5-5.5). I will bump that score up or down depending on how well I think you handle questioning. If you handle questioning badly or mediocracy, youll get rounded down. If you handle it well or really well, ill bump you up.

Asking questions: Whenever you ask a question, ill put a mark next to your name that'll get factored into my ballot. Whatever mark I put next to your name is based on the quality of your questioning.

If it was a low-quality question/not even really a question/ didnt contribute to any argument, I will but a minus sign next to your name.

If it was an okay question, im not writing anything

If you ask a question that helps your side a bunch, sets up a really good argument, or generally just seems really good ill give you a checkmark.

At the end, ill score how many points I gave you on speeches and how many points you got from questioning, and ill rank you according to that. Basically I have a system that makes sure questioning gets evaluated on my ballot so ask good questions.

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

CX specific stuff

I like policy because its unique lol. Debating it is low key a little freeing.

General debate stuff:

In terms of what I allow in round, since it's policy I think basically anything goes. Spreading, progressive args, whatever you want, Go off. Heres a few things to note tho

Speech sharing: I prefer speech drop, but if we must do an email chain for whatever reason, add me on atsophie.contaldi@gmail.com. Because it IS policy, please share your speech any time youre reading new cards/evidence. I also love people who write their analytics on the doc but just make sure to at the very least slow down for them.

Theory: Girl im not gonna vote for you because the other team didnt give you all of their arguments before round UNLESSSS what they're running is mad obscure and doesnt link to many common off. That destroys clash. I am also not going to vote for you because the other team didnt read out the qualifications of their authors or some other random thing that isnt standard. If you even try to read one of these not only is my pen going down but im submitting my ballot for the other side, closing my computer, and taking a nap.

My opinions on different arguments

On case: Though I did quit PF to be a policy main, PF is still my favorite event. This will reflect in how I chose to see arguments. I think on case is EXTREMELY important. Even if you dont have blocks have some analysis or something. It makes me sad when the neg doesnt interact with the aff case at all.

DA's: I like DA's a whole bunch. Please just explain them really well to me (especially if its obscure) and spend a lot of time talking about why and how the aff SPECIFICALLY links into the DA. Aff absolutely can turn a DA btw and if they do and neg kicks it its free aff offense.

T: I know T is pretty stock but please just be reasonable with it. Im not gonna buy a T thats just ridiculous. Also please explain violations and voters well in your T.

CP's: Make your CP make sense to me please. I prefer DA avoidant cp's. I think PICS are silly the majority of the time and dont really wanna vote for those tbh. Also prove competitveness please.

Theory: Please make it actually make sense. Like, if youre a big private school going against a small public school with a very small CX team and the word disclosure comes out of your mouth im literally leaving a thumbs down on your ballot. I totally buy arguments that certain theory types are unfair to judge by because small schools cant keep up with them.

K: Please make sure your K's are actually well written. The aff shouldnt be getting in trouble just for being aff with no way to change it. You need to give me SOME solvency on why your K actually effects the round or the debate space.

Additionally,

Just a little rule of mine, you should be able to back up your cards with analysis on why they're true. If e only ability to explain your nuclear war impact is a card from 1969 that says that if roach populations increase by 1% then Russia is going to nuke the entire world with NO EXPLAINABLE REASONING behind it, I am totally going to buy it if your opponent says that because you can't explain it, it doesn't happen.This kind of just links to me wanting you to actually understand your reasoning. Not everything is about cards. It's okay to let go of the block files and actually DEBATE the other team with analysis. MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL LINK CHAINS OF ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS!!

Please please PLEASEEEE try to stay consistent with your partner. I cant evaluate your arguments if you're operating on two entirely different keys.

You dont have to ask me to take prep but you do have to let me know when you start it, when you end it, and how much youve taken.

Heres the order of significance I use as a guideline to judge.

Weighing: This will go to how well your arguments develop through the round. Having a good impact will be the way to win this one. Please do not be afraid to weigh and call out specifically what the most important arguments in the round are. Unless your opponent attacks this and tells me to prioritize other arguments, if this goes conceded ill rank the importance of arguments in the order you told me to. Explain what my ballot should look like and why.

What I actually buy: This is about how your argument actually stands in the round. A solid link chain and good responses to opponents will win you this. I can buy any argument if it has a good link chain, but its not all about who can get the nuclear war impacts first as well. Make sure it makes sense, and spend time with extending if you think its necessary for me to understand. If your opponent doesnt call out the fact that your link chain isnt believable, then I will probably still evaluate it.

Argumentation: This is more the general skill of both debaters. Being able to effectively respond and structure your speeches, as well as efficient use of time is how you get this one.

Speaks stuff

I will give out speaker points starting at a 28.

To raise speaks) Effective use of time, respectfulness, being clear, having good link chains, effectively responding to arguments, good weighing, and good etiquette are all good ways to raise your speaks

To lower speaks) Basically the opposite of the raising speaks. Being disrespectful is almost an automatic 26 or 25.

More specific stuff (I recommend reading all of these).

I will evaluate basically any argument as long as it either links to the case very clearly or links to the controllable actions of the other team. Wanna tell me death is good? Go ahead. As long as you can debate it, I dont care. My only restrictions are the obvious not being discriminatory. This is policy, it's like the wild west of debate here queen.

K aff's are fun but have to be disclosed

I dont buy disclosure. As long as the opponents have a case that can reasonably link to some basic off then youre never gonna win on disclosure. You can make analysis based on case arguments, and I think that analysis is majorly underrated. If the opp has something like crazy obscure you can run it.

If youre spreading either slow down at analysis points or put analysis in your docs.

If youre running anything especially complex please make sure to explain it clearly to me in your speeches (like maybe spend more time on overviews/extending)

If youre going fast to the point I cant even keep up with the doc ill yell our clear

Run a reasonable amount of off. I am only going to count the first 5 (including case). If you go passed that you're getting a dramatic pen drop and im going to put my head down for the rest of your speech. Choose carefully what you wanna run because im not gonna be evaluating excessive off just so you can stress out the aff.

Tricks are stupid and if you try to run one youre getting a silly look while youre reading it. I fear the other team is in fact NOT AI generated even if they didnt pass your AI test in CX.

Reasonability is also everything. If you say poverty causes nuke war you better be ready to explain why. If the opp says "they have no link to poverty causing nuke war" even if you say "I have a card" as long as you can't explain your impacts im not voting for you on it.

If youre reading cards then put them in the doc

I dont care if it starts with "constructive", if you try to read a new argument out during the 2NC im gonna try to explode you with my mind instead of paying attention.

If you sneak a Chappell Roan reference in there somewhere ill give you an extra 0.1 speaking point. If its an obscure reference ill give you +0.2

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

Informative IE specific stuff:

I think how you chose to inform and engage me is crucial. Especially with the prep you have. Make it creative!!

30 precent how interesting your topic is, and 70 precent how well you delivered it/established your arguments.

I love love love creative topics/ creative spins on common topics n stuff. Commentaries on social issues are pretty sick, but I like whenever speeches commentate on more niche social issues that don't get covered a lot. Type of stuff you could watch a video essay on.

Make sure its well-structured and generally engaging and informative. I like whenever you incorporate creative elements into your structure,

While I can give time signals, if someone else in the room could that would be sick.

This is the only type of event that, though I have spectated it before, I have never done. I will be the least familiar with the structure here.

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

Acting IE specific stuff:

If you have a book that youre allowed to read off of, ill always rank someone who didnt read off of it often and maybe stumbled a bit over someone who read from it. Dont feel discouraged if you think you might forget parts of your piece! I wont dock you if you flip through real quick to find your spot and then continue or if you stumble a bit.

Also if you have a book, feel free to use it as a prop. This kind of goes for any materials you're allowed to have, whether its a book or a whole other person or whatever it is you're working with.

I like to see differentiation between different characters. Give everyone their own personality and character! Its your job to bring the piece to life! I dont even care about logistical consistency. Want your character's parents, who were born and live in Germany, to have southern and british accents? Sure. Just bring it to life!

Please dont be afraid to get expressive. You can jump around the room, be loud, whatever. Just try to have some flow and reason. But the speaking space/ anything you might have with you is yours to use in your interpretation of your piece

I dont like shock humor. Especially in like HI kind of stuff, if you have some weird jokes in there, maybe skip over them.

While I can give time signals, if someone else in the room could do that for me that would be sick.

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

Event not listed

Girl if your event isnt listed then we are both going to be very confused. Ill try to give a verbal paradigm if you ask me but chances are I know basically zero about your event (cough cough world schools) and that ive never debated or spectated it before (cough cough world schools). If you're not listed, you're probably in world schools or in some obscure middle school event. Girl ive tried to understand worlds and it makes my head hurt and makes me feel tired. I have no idea how to evaluate lip sync. I'm not gonna be as good of a judge as I usually am.

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

Overall: Just have fun with it. I only judge novices and so please dont be afraid to ask me questions, ill never vote you down for it. Debate is supposed to be a really fun activity, so dont stress over it and just generally let yourself have fun.

Scott Davis St Agnes Academy 2 rounds

Steve Delarosa Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Kishore Dherani Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds None

Binitha Divakaran Tompkins High School 4 rounds

Joseph Donowho Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Cody Dorumsgaard Wayzata 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 2:22 AM CST

For MSHSL Sections Congressional Debaters: Please scroll down and review my Congress paradigm.
Preface

Speech and Debate are educational activities. My goal as a judge is to pick the debater(s) who best argues their case or the speaker(s) who best meet the criteria of a given event. But I also am seeking a round that is educational. Abusive arguments and rhetoric have no place in debate. Treat each other with kindness. We are all here to learn and expand our knowledge and experience. Racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments should not be made. Everyone is welcome in the debate community, do not marginalize and silence folks with your argumentation.

Also, since speech and debate are educational activities, feel free to ask me questions after the round. I'm here to help educate as well. As long as we have time before the next round has to start (and I've got enough time to submit my ballot before Zach Prax comes looking for me), then I'm always happy to answer questions.

Background

Director of Debate at Wayzata High School (MN) since Sept. 2020, I've been coaching and judging locally and nationally since 2013. I also coach speech at Wayzata and at the University of Minnesota.

I am a licensed, practicing attorney. I work as a criminal prosecutor for a local county in Minnesota and I have a MA in Strategic Intelligence and Analysis with a concentration in International Relations and Diplomacy.

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.Please, please, please make your voters clear.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. I like a solid framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not who said it.

-Off-time roadmaps are often a waste of time. If all you are doing is telling me that the Neg Rebuttal is "our case their case" then you don't need to tell me that. If you are going to go FW, then some cross-application, then your case, then their case, then back to FW, then that is something you should tell me. More importantly SIGN POST, SIGN POST, SIGN POST.

-SPEED. This is Public Forum, not Policy. If you spread, you're probably going to lose. I flow on my computer so that I can get as much on my flow as possible, but if you're too fast and unclear, it's not on my flow. If it's not on my flow, it's not evaluated in the round.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Shouting over each other on CX. Keep it civil. Don't monopolize the time.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. If you aren't participating, then I assume it's because you do not have anything more to add to the debate and/or that you aren't actively involved in the debate and I likely will adjust speaks accordingly.

-K cases. I do not like them in public forum, especially if they are not topical. However, a K that is topical and actually engages with the topic and is generally within the topic meta is something I *may* vote off of. But it must be topical, otherwise I will not vote off the argument.

-Loud, annoying, alarms at the end of speeches. Especially the rooster crow. Please no rooster crow.

-Speaking of timers, if you're going to critique your opponents for going over time, you should probably make sure that you aren't going over time yourself. Also, you don't need to turn your timer to show me that your opponent is over time. I'm aware of their time, it just comes across as rude.

General

-I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Referring back to your "Smith" card isn't enough, but giving a quick paraphrasing of the previously cited card, along with the author/source is much more beneficial and effective. Similarly, "Harvard" is a collegiate institution, not an author. Harvard doesn't write anything. Harvard doesn't publish anything. They may have a publishing company or a magazine that publishes, but Harvard does not, and last time I checked, John Harvard has been dead since 1638, so I doubt he has anything pertinent to support your argumentation.

-I'm an expressive person. I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.

-I like CX, so I tend to allow you to go over time a bit on CX, particularly if team A asks team B a question right before time in order to prevent them from answering. I'll let them answer the question.

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than complain later!

Lincoln Douglas

I'm a PF coach, however I judge LD frequently and I often assist LD students throughout the season.

- I find that it is best to treat me as a "flay" judge... I will flow, but I'm lay. I am very familiar with most of the traditional value/criterion/standards. If you have some new LD tech that is popular on the circuit or something, then I'm probably not the judge for you to run that, unless you are going to fully explain it out because I probably don't know it.

- Speed kills. I do not want to have to strain myself trying to flow your speech. I do not want you to email me your case in order for me to be able to follow it. As noted above in the PF section, if I do not get it on my flow, it probably does not end up impacting the round. I am not afraid to say speed or clear, but by the time I realize I have to say it, it's probably too late for you.

- K debate. I really have no interest in judging a K.

Congress

- I really want some speech variety from y'all. If I am judging Congress, I'm often serving as a parliamentarian so I'm with you for several sessions. As a result, I should be able to get to see you do a variety of different speeches. I actually have a spreadsheet I use to track everyone's speeches throughout the round, what number speech they gave on each bill, which side they argue for, how often they speak, etc. After the round is over and I'm preparing my ballot, I will consult that to see whether you gave a variety of speech types. Were you consistently in the first group of speakers giving constructives? Did you give mid-cycle speeches where you bring clash and direct refutation? Did you mainly give crystallization speeches? Or, did you do a mix of it all? You should be striving to be in the last category. Congress is not about proving you can give the best prepared speech or that you can crystallize every bill. It's about showing how well-rounded you are.

- Speaking of prepared speeches. My opinion is that you should only come in with a fully prepared speech if you are planning to give the authorship/sponsorship or the very first negative speech. After that, your speeches should be no more than 50% canned and the rest should be extemporaneous. The later in the cycle you speak, the less canned your speech should be. This is a debate event. It is not a speech event. Prepared speeches in the mid and late cycles of debate are a disservice to yourself and your fellow congresspersons. And trust me, we can tell when you’re scripted. You aren’t that good at hiding it.

- PREP. I have judged a lot of congress over the years. I've judged prelims, elims, and finals at NSDA, NCFL, and the TOC. I am frankly COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TIRED of y'all having to take a 10+ minute break in between every piece of legislation to either A) prep speeches; B) establish perfect balance between aff and neg; or, C) do research on the bill. A and C really frustrate me. I know y'all are busy. I know that sometimes legislation comes out only a few days before the tournament. And I know that sometimes there are a lot of pieces of legislation to research. But y'all should be spending time to prepare your arguments and have research so that all you're doing mid-round is finding evidence to refute or extend something that happened in the round. And the way tournaments are structured these days, it is rare for a round to have so many people in the chamber that not everyone can speak on a bill. Do the research on your own time, prep speeches on your own time (or, I dunno, give an extemporenous speech maybe?), and stop wasting the judges time.

POLICY

Never thought I’d be adding this section but here I am. If you read everything above, you should have a pretty good idea of my background and what I like/dislike in other debate events. You’ll notice that I really don’t like speed. That’s still true for policy. I want to be able to understand the debate not have to read it. You’ll also notice I don’t like K debate. That’s much more related to PF (where there’s little value in having a K debate) and LD (where I don’t think there’s enough time or ability to effectively develop the K) so ignore that I guess?

Best practice would probably be for you to ask me questions before the round. We’ll both learn something that way.

I am very unlikely to give oral disclosure.

Tharoon Eswar Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Jumico Evi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:44 AM PST

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

Alexander Farahbod The Kinkaid School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 1:32 PM EST

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.

Jian Feng St Agnes Academy 3 rounds None

Bo Gao Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Andre Geffen Central High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 6:05 PM EST

TLDR: trad tech that cares about ev ethics, <300 wpm (varsity), <200 wpm (novice)

Please create an email chain or shared Google Doc before the round for sharing evidence and add me on it: my email is 8485238@philasd.org

You can generally expect me to be a traditional tech judge. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round if I’m in the room, or text me at 215-863-7755 (or use WhatsApp or Signal). After the round, if you have any questions about my decision that I didn’t answer, or want some feedback/help, send me an email or text.

If you’re curious, I’m a senior and the varsity captain at Central, I debated in ASAP for 2 years (1 JV and 1 V), and I now compete on the national circuit.

Here’s what you need to do for me to vote for you:

I vote on the flow. Make sure any arguments you want me to count are introduced in constructive, and extended (this means that you remind me of them with a brief summary) in both summary and final focus. All responses to your opponents arguments (rebuttals) must be introduced in your rebuttal (not your summary) and extended in your summary and preferably in your final focus. All of your frontlines (rebuttals to rebuttals) must be introduced in rebuttal if you are the second speaking team or summary if you are the first speaking team, and extended through summary and final focus.

While I’m mostly tech over truth, you still need to have good warranting (explanations of your arguments). For example, if you tell me that student loan forgiveness will lead to extinction and your opponents don’t respond to it, I won’t vote on that. But if you tell me that student loan forgiveness will lead to government collapse, leading to less climate regulations, leading to a climate catastrophe, leading to extinction, and then you extend that properly in your summary and final focus, and your opponents don’t adequately respond to it, I would vote on that even though it’s ridiculous.

That also means that you shouldn’t just read a bunch of statistics. Stats alone won’t convince me. You can use them to give credibility to your warranting, but if you just tell me that there’s a correlation between two things and don’t tell me why, don’t expect me to vote for that.

Weigh! This can easily be the deciding factor. If you convince me to weigh your impacts in a ridiculous way, I will vote that way. This means that you can convince me, for instance, that 1 death today is more important than global economic collapse, as long as you give me a reason to vote for it, extend it properly, and your opponents fail to respond to it properly.

Use all of your speech time. Are you done with everything you wanted to say? Just spend the rest of your speech on weighing, or improvise some new points. I expect you to keep your own time, but I will also try to keep time myself. I won't flow (take notes) beyond a ten second grace period after you're out of time.

I do not flow crossfire, but I will count it if you bring up something that was said in crossfire in a later speech.

I am comfortable with some speed (past 300 wpm I might miss some things) but please keep your speed <200 wpm in novice rounds out of respect for your opponents; you will get 24 speaks and I will try to vote for your opponents if you go fast in novice.

When you use evidence, cite it in round (just say the last name of the author or publisher and the last two digits of the year) and have it ready to show to your opponents if they call for it. While I won't vote you down myself for misrepresented evidence, please call for any sketchy cards your opponents have, and if they are misrepresented, tell me to vote them down in your next speech for that bad evidence. In that speech, you should to tell me that misconstruing evidence destroys fairness in debate. Then tell me that without fairness there is no debate. Then tell me that I should therefore vote your opponent down to set a precedent. If you do that, and the evidence is actually misconstrued, I will almost certainly vote them down, although I will still vote on the flow. I have a pretty low tolerance for sketchy evidence, though.

this doesn't matter for 99% of debaters that I judge, but:

If you want to run theory or a kritik, I will evaluate it, but you will have to pass a pretty high bar to convince me that the pre-fiat impacts are large and probable enough for me to vote on it. I generally don’t believe in most disclosure or trigger warnings, so you’re going to have to meet a pretty high bar for me to be receptive to that argument, although I will consider it. Similarly, I am extremely skeptical of debaters claiming to have an impact beyond the debate space. While I will flow and evaluate such arguments, very simple analytics will knock this off the flow for me. Also, I really don’t like judging pre-fiat debate. While I understand its importance and generally get its warranting, I’d still rather judge a purely post-fiat round.

The one exception to all that is evidence IVIs. I’m very willing to drop the debater for misconstruing evidence. Please please please point that out if it happens and run an IVI on it. You don’t need a whole shell if your opponent misconstrues evidence please don’t waste everyone’s time with an interp.

Don't ever run a kritik or theory in any novice or JV round; I will vote you down for that immediately even if you win on substance. There are two exceptions to this. First, if your opponent commits an egregious evidence violation (this has to be something malicious, not just bad formatting), I will listen to drop the argument or drop the debater. Second, if your opponent introduces new arguments or evidence way too late in the round, I will listen to drop the argument but not drop the debater.

Collin Goemmer A and M Consolidated High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 13, 2024 at 8:02 AM CST

Hello! I debated for four years in high school and have been judging for seven years. Currently, I am in my second year as an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School.

I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate styles. As a debater, your job is to communicate your arguments clearly and persuasively—if I can’t follow your reasoning, it’s your responsibility, not mine.

General Philosophy

I view debate as an educational activity that prioritizes critical thinking, effective communication, and strategic engagement. My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round fairly, without imposing personal biases.

Debates should balance technical precision with accessibility. While I appreciate strategic complexity, clarity and persuasion remain essential.

Key Aspects of Evaluation

1.Framework

Clearly establish a framework for the debate. This helps me understand how to evaluate the round.
If no framework is provided, I will default to weighing impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

2. Clash

Direct engagement with opposing arguments is essential. A good debate involves refutation and comparison of ideas.
Merely reiterating your case without engaging with your opponent’s arguments will weaken your position.

3. Impact Analysis

Explain why your impacts matter within the context of the debate.
Weigh impacts explicitly (e.g., through magnitude, probability, or timeframe) to guide my decision-making process.

4. Evidence and Logic

Evidence should be accurate, relevant, and properly cited. Misrepresenting evidence will hurt your credibility.
Logical consistency and coherence are just as important as evidence. Make sure your arguments follow a clear and reasonable structure.

5. Clarity and Organization

Signpost your arguments clearly so I can follow your reasoning.
Stay organized in your delivery, especially in later speeches when crystallizing the round.

6. Speaker Etiquette and Respect

Maintain professionalism and respect throughout the round. Disrespectful behavior or tone will affect speaker points.
Debate should be a constructive activity. Engage in a way that fosters mutual learning and growth.

Procedural Preferences 1. Dropped Arguments

Dropped arguments are not automatically round-winning. You must explain why the dropped argument is significant and how it impacts the round.

2. New Arguments

New arguments introduced in the final speeches will not be evaluated unless the format explicitly allows it (e.g., Worlds School Debate).
Extensions must be clear and consistent with earlier speeches.

3. Evidence Standards

Be prepared to provide evidence if requested. Refusal to share evidence or misrepresenting sources will negatively impact your speaks and possibly your overall standing in the round.

4. Speed and Accessibility

I can follow speed, but clarity is essential. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them.
Debate is a communication event; your delivery should prioritize understanding over sheer volume.

5. Framework and Weighing

Clearly articulate your weighing mechanisms throughout the round.
If no weighing is done, I will default to my own evaluation, but this will make your case less persuasive.

Event-Specific Preferences

I have more in depth paradigms for the events linked at the bottom of the paradigm page

1. Policy Debate

I am comfortable with technical arguments such as kritiks, topicality, and theory, but they must be well-explained and linked to the resolution.
Impact calculus is crucial. Make sure to compare your impacts to your opponent’s explicitly.

2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Value and criterion debates are important but should not overshadow the substantive arguments.
Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and applied to the resolution.

3. Public Forum Debate

Focus on clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility. PF is meant to be audience-friendly.
Avoid spreading or overly technical jargon. Engage in direct clash and emphasize impact weighing.

4. World Schools Debate

Persuasion, style, and structure are just as important as content.
Team dynamics and strategic roles matter. Make sure your speeches complement each other.

5. Congressional Debate

Clash is critical; reference previous arguments and specific speakers.
Delivery, organization, and the ability to adapt to the debate are key factors in my evaluation.

Speaker Points Criteria

Clarity: Are your arguments easy to follow and well-structured?
Engagement: Do you interact effectively with your opponent’s arguments?
Strategy: Are your speeches cohesive and aligned with your overall strategy?
Delivery: Is your tone persuasive, professional, and engaging?
Speaker points will range between 27-30, with higher points awarded for outstanding strategy, engagement, and delivery.

Final Notes

Debate should be an enjoyable and educational activity. Focus on creating a meaningful and respectful exchange of ideas.
My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round, not to impose my personal beliefs or preferences.
Have fun, and remember that the skills you develop in debate go far beyond winning individual rounds.

DON’T BE RUDE
I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS
It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage
Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues
I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage
Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.
Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Ethics and Respect:
If I observe a debater exploiting a less experienced opponent to boost their ego, I will not hesitate to drop their speaks to the lowest possible, assign them a loss regardless of the flow, and inform their coach. Such behavior is unethical and detracts from the educational value of debate, which should be a space for growth and learning. Everyone deserves respect in the round, regardless of skill level or experience.
Progressive Arguments:
While I usually prefer traditional arguments, I’m open to progressive arguments if they are well-constructed, clearly explained, and relevant. However, I’ve seen many cases where these arguments are poorly executed, unclear, or run simply for the sake of being progressive. If you choose to run progressive arguments, ensure you fully understand them and can articulate their significance effectively. Poorly run progressive cases will not be well-received.
Expectations:

Pre-Flowing: Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should know it well enough to present confidently without needing my assistance beforehand.
Judging Style: I’m equally comfortable with big-picture overviews or line-by-line analysis. Just make sure your arguments are clear and structured.
Weighing and Impact Calculus: Always provide impact calculus and weigh your arguments for me. This is essential for guiding my decision.
Theory and Arguments: I dislike frivolous theory—run it only when it’s necessary and justified. Don’t present arguments you don’t fully understand or cannot defend under cross-examination.
Case Preparation and Presentation:

Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should already know it.
I can judge rounds on either big-picture analysis or line-by-line. Choose the style that best supports your argument.
Always include impact calculus and weigh your arguments clearly.
I dislike frivolous theory. Only run theory if it’s necessary and justified.
Don’t present arguments or evidence you don’t fully understand.
Please stand when speaking
make sure you weigh for me
make sure you are doing the work for the judge
don't ask me if you can skip grand cross in PF the answer is no it's a part of the round

Spreading:

Debate is a communication event. Even if I can understand speed, DO NOT SPREAD. I cannot flow what I cannot comprehend, and I will not rely on your speech doc unless there is an evidence-related issue.

Integrity:

Do not fabricate sources. If I suspect you are making up evidence, I will fact-check it and contact your coach and the tournament director.

Educational Priority:

I prioritize the educational value of debate over competitiveness. If you spread out a novice team, use overly vague terminology, or act dismissively, I will give you an L and minimum speaks. Debate should foster critical thinking, respect, and communication skills.

Disclosure:

I do not disclose decisions. All feedback will be provided on the ballot. Please do not ask me to disclose.

Education Over Competition:
I prioritize debate as an educational activity rather than purely a competitive one. If you spread your opponent out of the round, especially a novice team, are intentionally vague with your vocabulary, or act dismissive, rude, or uncooperative, I will assign you a loss and give you the minimum speaks. Debate is about fostering critical thinking, communication, and respect, not exploiting others for a competitive edge. Local tournaments, in particular, are opportunities for growth and should nurture nuanced, thoughtful, and educated participants.
Final Note:
Be respectful, aim for clarity, and, above all, have fun. Debate is a space to learn, challenge ideas, and grow—let’s keep it that way.

Event-Specific Preferences Policy Debate

I’m comfortable with technical arguments (e.g., kritiks, topicality, theory) if they are well-explained and linked to the resolution.
Impact calculus is critical—explicitly compare your impacts to your opponent’s.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Value and criterion debates are important but shouldn’t overshadow substantive arguments.
Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and relevant to the resolution.

Public Forum Debate

Clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility are key.
Avoid spreading or relying on technical jargon—PF should be audience-friendly.
Direct clash and effective impact weighing are essential.

World Schools Debate

Persuasion, style, and structure are as important as content.
Team dynamics and strategic roles should complement each other.

Congressional Debate

Content>presentation, Congress is a debate event and needs to be treated as such, don't just give a speech just to give a speech.
Clash is critical. Reference prior arguments and specific speakers directly.
Avoid repetitive speeches; focus on adding new insights to the discussion.
Delivery, organization, and adaptability are key factors in my evaluation.

Extemporaneous Speaking (Extemp)

Answer the question directly—failing to do so will hurt your rank.
Speeches should be well-organized, with a strong hook and clear structure.
Fabricated sources will result in penalties. Integrity is non-negotiable.

Interpretation Events (Interp)

Good blocking, clear character transitions, and distinct portrayals are essential.
Emotion is important, but avoid overacting—subtlety and nuance are often more impactful.

Original Oratory (OO)

A strong oratory should educate and inspire.
Start with a catchy AGD, provide clear solutions, and end with a powerful call to action.
Choose unique topics to stand out.

Informative Speaking (Info)

Info is distinct from OO—do not present an OO in an Info round.
Focus on societal implications and use creative visuals.

Expectations and Final Notes

Debate should be an educational and respectful activity. I prioritize growth over competitiveness.
I do not tolerate discriminatory language, fabricated evidence, or unethical behavior. Violations will result in a loss and the lowest speaks.
Do not spread excessively. Debate is a communication event, and your delivery must prioritize clarity.
Make my job easy—weigh your impacts and clearly explain why you’re winning the round.

Finally, have fun! Debate is a space for learning, challenging ideas, and growth. Let’s keep it that way.

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Blanson CTE, Avalos P-TECH

Nathan Gong Hire 6 rounds

olivia grove Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Tami Grove Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Jeff Harkleroad Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 5:18 AM EST

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Tim Haskell Concord Carlisle High School 6 rounds

Sowmya (Somi) Iyengar William P. Clements High School 1 rounds

bianca jackson Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds None

Saumya Jhaveri Hire 3 rounds

andrew jones Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds

D'Layne Kelly Winston Churchill HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 24, 2024 at 5:59 AM CST

Please email your case ahead of the round to dlaynekelly@gmail.com If I can preflow ahead of time, it will help me during the round. I want to know your contentions ahead of time. (I'm also okay with using Speech Drop or an email chain at the start of the round instead of email if that is preferred by the teams).

Please do not spread; I want to understand your words and ideas clearly.

I appreciate logical, sequential arguments. Make sure throughout the round you are clearly explaining to me what your argument is and why it matters.

Present clear framework.

State impacts clearly.

Make sure during your speech, you are sign posting. Otherwise, I will have a hard time following your argument.

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant.

Don’t run theory or k; I tend to vote for logical, warranted out evidence.

Make sure you convince me in your final focus why you should win. I will weigh heavily on that. Basically, your FF should write my RFD

Be respectful in words and actions to your opponents. If you interrupt, cut them off, or speak over them, I will dock speaker points

Do your best and have fun!

dlaynekelly@gmail.com

Speech Events:

I value your ability to communicate your ideas in a well organized structure. A good speaker is one that is able to keep the audience engaged but also has good ideas and argumentation that flows with good transitions, sources, and analysis. There shouldn’t be any holes in your speech where I’m able to question the credentials of the author or their research or their analysis or any other number of things.

Martin Klein Hire 6 rounds

Manish Kumar Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds None

Michael Li Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Julie Liu Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Amit Mehta MB Independent 2 rounds

Owen Morris Flower Mound High School 4 rounds

Thuan Nguyen Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:11 PM EST

Debate

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round.

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast. While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument. Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible.

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this.

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

Akhil Perla Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:07 PM CST

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

Kris Qiu Wayzata 1 rounds

Humal Raza Stephen F Austin High School 2 rounds None

Binu Reghunathan Interlake HS 5 rounds

Misha Saeed Stephen F Austin High School 2 rounds None

Bhavani Sathya Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Moksh Shah Stephen F Austin High School 3 rounds

Utkarsh Singh Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Raj Solanki Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 6:10 AM CST

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

~~30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptop~~I will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument
dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

"I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

take flex prep if needed

Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EST

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

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.

Ameerah Suleman Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Craig Tahaney St Agnes Academy 2 rounds

Jennifer Tang Jordan High School 3 rounds

Pavit Thakur Stephen F Austin High School 3 rounds

Ajit Tijare MSTW 4 rounds

Ping Rui Toong Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 8:28 PM GMT

Hi! I graduated back in 2018. I used to compete mainly in Foreign Extemp and Congress, making it to TFA and UIL state finals multiple times and NSDA out rounds throughout my career. Debate is about learning to present your arguments and think critically about issues. Showing me that you have those critical thinking skills will help you score well with me.

Extemp - Analysis > Presentation; Going in depth and analyzing situations from a unique perspective will score high points with me - present ideas from a new point of view; humor is always appreciated; Contextualize your argument as well and why the topic is important/interesting to discuss

Each of your points should have your internal structure. Walk me through the intricacies of your arguments and how it helps you get to answering the question. Merely throwing statistics and numbers at me without explaining what they mean and providing additional evidence to explain those numbers will be useless to me. It will not help advance your argument at all and your points will be docked for this.

Other speaking events (Oratory/impromptu/etc.) - Presentation matters (especially oratory - it's a memorized speech so you should have it practiced down to perfection); humor is always again appreciated

Congress- Clash and engage with other participants; by the time we are on the second cycle of a topic, I expect you to already be engaging with the previous speech - failure to do so will result in a lower rank; Be respectful of your other congress members as well - degrading or aggressive questioning will reflect badly on your results. Make sure to rely on good and quotable sources that can quantify the impacts of your argument. Above all - presentation should be flawless as you literally bring up your speech to speak - there is no reason why you should forget a detail when you have the skeleton of your speech right in front of you.

For questioning - this is Congress. You are to act like a statesman. I will down you for aggressive questioning. Treat each other with respect, don't assume that you know more than the speaker and prevent the answerer from getting an opportunity to answer your question will look really bad on you.

Debate events - Impact impact impact, make sure to articulate your arguments and be very clear about what point you are making, unique arguments will be appreciated over standard arguments, go in depth - think about issues critically and engage with the topic rather than mentioning a tag line and then moving on. The more you weigh your impacts, the better I will be able to calculate those impacts in your favor.

However, impacts without a link are useless to me. So, when addressing your opponent's arguments - please make sure that you directly address the argument and links that they are making. Example: if they make an argument about inflation, don't give a generic Econ argument UNLESS you somehow tie the impact directly back to inflation.

I won't extend things across the flow for you. You need to do that. Walk me through each argument and sign post along the way so I have an idea of what you're getting at.

I don't buy any of the identity arguments (racism, ableism, etc.). Focus on the topicality of the debate - I don't want to hear the same re-hashed gender identity arguments I've heard before. Don't try to run them in front of me - I won't consider them.

Spreading - only for CX and LD. Will NOT be tolerated in any other events.

Ping Rui Toong Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 8:28 PM GMT

I won't extend things across the flow for you. You need to do that. Walk me through each argument and sign post along the way so I have an idea of what you're getting at.

Spreading - only for CX and LD. Will NOT be tolerated in any other events.

Gurjinder Toor Hire 6 rounds

Sai Vudata Dulles High School 2 rounds None

Nina Wan Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Grace Wu Katy Taylor High School 6 rounds None

Meghan Avis Yen Episcopal HS - Houston/Bellaire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 9:01 AM CST

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

Follow precedence with few mistakes
Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Chris Young Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS 6 rounds

Harry Yu Memorial High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:38 AM CST

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

Syed Zaidi Hire 6 rounds

Lucy Heather Zeng Hire 6 rounds None

Kevin Zhang Interlake HS 3 rounds

Ying Zhang William P. Clements High School 1 rounds

Weijia Zheng Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Katy Taylor TFA TOC NIETOC Fall Classic

2023 — NSDA Campus, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges