Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

Lay Judge; Talk no faster than conversational and explain your points to me. I will vote for the team that I think has the strongest argument at the end of the round.

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

About Me: I went to a small high school and took debate class for all four years. I participated in policy debate, but we often did not compete in co-curricular events. I also joined the CMU Debate team for a semester and participated in Lincoln Douglas debate. In 2007, I judged forensics for MIFA as a student teacher at Utica High School. It has been about 10 years, but I just started coaching and judging Public Forum debate for Utica High School.

Judging Criteria: Providing framework is important, along with clear road mapping throughout your speech. Repeat your framework throughout the speech and adhere to that in your final focus. I usually flow the entire debate and judge primarily off of the flow, but I also weigh persuasiveness, evidence, logic, and refutations. I pay close attention to "dropped" arguments, so I suggest that you and your partner flow as to refute their arguments. Clash is very important to me in a debate. Use all of your speaker time - I am looking for your speech to refute the other teams' arguments, then strengthen your teams' arguments with supplemental evidence. Clear communication is important. Make eye contact as frequent as possible, I also prefer a conversational style, opposed to jargon that a "lay" judge would not understand. I am judging based on the quality of your arguments made - not the quantity. Speakers should appear confident, with clear, logical relevant arguments and recent evidence.

I like confidence in a speaker, but I do not like cockiness or being mean while debating. This is supposed to be fun and educational, so I expect you to keep it classy. Do not look at each other during cross fire - you are trying to persuade me - not your opponent. Do not make statements during cross fire - save that for your summary or final focus. Ask meaningful questions during cross fire, as it can be a turning point for a debate. I am not going to judge a debate based on how "pretty" you speak, but I take your communication style along with case, evidence & arguments into consideration.

Hi, I'm Alex, I did Congress for 4 years. Here are my expectations in-round.

• Clash is expected in mid to late round speeches. Make sure analysis is clear- the strength of the argument itself is important but you also need to present it in a efficient way.
• I value persuasive memorable presentation/delivery. Polished speakers will score well.
• A forceful demeanor is fine, but don't be mean. As in yelling over the questioner/questionee to force a point across, or ad hominem.