Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

Hi there!

My name is Arjun Krishnan and I was a debater who primarily specialized in world schools for my HS career, I'll be attend Texas A&M in the fall and am pursuing a bachelor's degree in business administration with a minor in public health

High school:

Coppell H.S 2022-2024

Experience:

I have a pretty decent amount of experience and have reached deep elims at a pretty good amount of tournaments including:

2024 @ Berkley (Champion + top 20 speaker)

2024 @ TFA State (Octas)

2023 @ Blake (Quarters)

2023 @ University of Texas (Octas + 7th speaker)

2023 @ Greenhill Fall Classic (Quarters + Top 2 seed)

Paradigm stuff:

General Thoughts:

• PLS DO NOT MAKE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, AND HORRIBLE STATEMENTS OR U WILL BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY
• no spreading pls, if u sound like eminem did on rap god at any point in the debate.. I swear I will mentally clock out and start watching basketball.
• Engage at the heart of the motion/resolution/topic at hand, or you will force me to make a decision which will definitely not be pleasant to listen to.
• Have fun and Sprinkle in ur own personal swagger into each round, it makes it alot more fun to watch and adjudicate

WSD Specifics

• I enjoy cohesive rhetoric throughout each bench (Make sure that your advocacy is consistent from speech to speech)
• FRAMING is IMPORTANT but should not be ur entire case
• Make sure that everyone is pulling their own weight (1's should be asking POI's consistently)
• debate is like building a sandcastle...the ones find a spot to build it through introducing framing and case, the twos get the sand by refuting and extending AND defending, and the three builds it through 2/3 clash questions and WEIGHING...the reply puts the flag on top and explains to me what sand castle u built.
• pois should not exceed 15 seconds
• If u badger too much, ill just look at u funny and just dock ur speaks
• Don't expect me to vote purely off of examples, use it in order to further ur analysis, don't just bank on it to win u arguments as a whole
• the 4th speech is one of my favorites, and one of THE most important speeches in the round, make sure that u are properly world building in this speech + dropping rhetorical bombs; I will NOT be making my decision in any given round until i am 100% convinced by the reply to pull the trigger!
• FINALLY, do not lie...i hate lying. don't lie about stats, bc they will not help u without real analysis.
• I dont really have a preference for principle over practical arguments, just make sure that you are weighing well enough to make me feel comfortable

DO NOT'S

• Dont use rhetoric that includes another teams name (imo it often makes strong intros a bit more weak)
• Dont be overly aggressive when asking and anwsering POI's
• Pls dont post-round me its not gonna change the decision

Funny:

• If u mention lebron james 4x in your speech ill boost ur speaks
• If u can do 55 pushups in front of me ill boost ur speaks
• If you hit the milly rock after ur speech ill boost ur speaks
• These will give u (+.5) speaks AT best

if u got any questions pls feel free to email me @arjungkrishnan11@gmail.com

Hi guys, my name is Aarnah, and I am a Senior at Hockaday! I have about a year and a half of policy experience and half a year of public forum. My main focus for the past three and a half years was in world schools debate, but I am so excited to be your judge!!

Here are a couple of things I look for when judging Public Forum:

• I understand that sometimes spreading is inherent to PF, but if possible, please try to slow down to an understandable pace so that I can fully give you credit for the arguments you present!

• Evidence is very important, but I would like to see more logical links, impact analysis, and clear connections about why that argument would put you ahead in the round.

• I only judge what I hear in the round, so if you think your opponent's arguments might be obviously wrong, make sure to explicitly tell me why.

• When your argument has been refuted, please not only address their refutation but also extend your argument and tell me why even if they are correct, you still win.

• Please make sure to interact with your opponents' arguments explicitly, point out areas where your arguments directly clash, and then tell me why you're winning in the debate!

• Also, please give me weighing mechanisms and give me clear voters in the later speeches about why you should win the round. In other words, give me a clear path to the ballot!

• I do not tolerate any form of hate speech, so make sure you are being respectful in not only the arguments that you are making but also in how you address your teammates, opponents, and me.

• Lastly, at the end of the day, this is a debate round, so please take a deep breath and enjoy the round. Good luck!!!

Coppell '24

POLICY/LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

Please add this email to the email chain: this.is.sahilp@gmail.com.

I am a Worlds judge, so to make it easiest for me slow down and make your arguments clear, I have almost no experience in other events.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

This event is by far where most of my competitive experience is.

A few general things:

• Do not barrack with your POI's, it will result in lower speaker points.
• Do not ask POI's during the first and last minute of the constructive speeches and do not ask POI's during the reply speeches.
• Use weighing and warrants to substantiate your claims and prove to me why you should win the round. The less work I have to do, the better.
• World comparison is very important as it clearly paints to me a world I would rather live in. Don't make me fill in the blanks and intervene!
• Do not spread, make sure you are speaking at a conversational speed.

With all that being said, good luck in round!