Tabroom.com

Damus Hollywood Invitational

2023 — Sherman Oaks, CA/US

WSD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Hunniya Ahmad Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 2:07 PM CDT

General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject they tournament, round, & year!!! + email may ab any questions after the round/ if u need advice on anything super open!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively + elimination rounds 2 years , qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids + 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters a season as well give or take

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

I NEED TWS FOR anything suicide related, graphic queer violence, fatness lit. Error on the side of asking me and the opponent.

Shortcuts:

1- K/LARP

2- T/THEORY

3-PHIL/TRICKS

TLDR

the more i’ve been judging the more i’ve come to the conclusion that having argument preferences seems like some level of intervention— however i think bias effects evryone often subconsciously so to be transparent these metrics go to show you the arguments i have the most experience and understanding on withbuti will and HAVE voted on any argument that’s not morally fucked up (defined above) if it has a claim warrant and impact (FROM linguistic skep, to set col, to cap good, to kant, to url theory, to US china war scenarios, etc )

tech>truth but arguments dropped need to extend a warrant and implication !!!

i tend to vote the path that is 1- the easiest route to the ballot 2- requires the least intervention and 3- outweighs which is why weighing and ballot framing is IMPORTANT-- all which is filtered by how well I understand what your going for. if you leave me to decide how Ithink the arguments in the round interact together and which to prefer you risk a decision u don’t like—> tldr weigh it under the framing metric and write my ballot for me

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything--> post-rounding is diff from asking, maybe focus on WHY I voted a certain way instead of WHY im wrong. I am not a perfect judge nor human but I always want to make sure the reason i made my decisions is understood.

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

if ur a circuit debater hitting a lay/trad debater and its a bid tournament go for the arguments u want to BUT ur demeanor will filter how i give speak TLDR don’t be mean.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light

. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.I

iF UR HITTING A PIC AND THE 1ar IS ONLY DEFENSE ITS gonna be very hard to win beyond like pics bad—> offense !!!!!! matters!!!!

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like racism good lmao use ur judgement.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

weigh impacts vs the aff, weighing isn’t just impact calc in a vacuum but clear argument interaction

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction ow---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

please for the love of god contextualize ur link 2nrs to the aff ur hitting.

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

I hate when these debates become two passing ships in the night throwing out arguments without any interaction leaving me to pick up the mess- weigh and answer things in context and be responsive

non black pess is probably bad...., I wont vote u down automatically but if the argument comes up in the debate I do lean to say u shouldnt be reading it especially if black debaters/authors are saying so lol and ill be honest ab that predisposition

K affs

love !! but iI will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

i love creative counter interns of the topic and fun disads to T-- it's easier to beat T when you have a relaiton to the topic but you do you just win

dont forget about ur rob- if u lose framing u get behind !!!

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model.

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

weigh why the aff or impact turns ow before t and win the rob to filter out offense

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on if ur going for fairness impact it out in the context of the education spin most 1ars give. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me but if ur winning on the flow you’ll get my ballot. Fairness 2nrs story should be implicated out to be more important I WILL VOTE ON FAIRNESS JUST WIN WHY PROCEDRUAL VIOLATIONS DESTORY THE GAME AND THATS THE MOST IMP or filter education. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- on this flow is a make or break for me win ur model is better for debate!!! contextualize it too the aff. often time these debates are messy because neither debater clashes with eachother beyond their pre written arguments— explain ur 2nr/2ar in CONTEXT.

also predict what the 2ar will be and tell me why its wrong, 2ar k aff ethos and weighing and collapsing can screw t debates over, I like 2nrs that tell me why everything they r ab to tell me is answered b y ur speech and how. you nEED models comparison in the 2nr and 2ar to stay ahead + sitting on arguments.

Theory

I enjoy judging this if you do it well

the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth (this means even if i don’t LIKE the theory as much if ur winning it you’ll win, however if your opponent goes for reasonability + defense i’ll fw that as long as they r winning their weighing metrics if the shell is kinda ridiculous. BUT I wont intervene-- if you win reasonability is bad then its bad)

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + win reasonability. evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with but if u win why its good got for it. non disclosure due to identity/safety concerns is a model i am willing to vote on.

for some reason this is an issue but don’t forget to like extend the voters and like connect the standards to them. esp in more intense theory rounds you need too uplayer and impact shells out in context.

I default to c/I and no rvis (but only if no one mentions anything, say otherwise and that changes)

Phil

I like following syllogisms that are very logical and organized.

I will vote on it if you win it- I can if you I make the wrong desicion it was because I was confused nd u didint explain or sit on smth well.

Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense tell me why consequentialism doesn't matter. don’t just extend claims, extend WARRANTS-- and what they impact out to--make these debate clean and pretty

Phil v k debates r pretty fun- u win these not just by having explanatory power of how violence operates but winning ideal theory resolves violence best-- k win these debates by turning ideal theory and winning its violent

Tricks

do wtv u want but I wont vote on smth I cant explain back in the rfd so make it make sense if you win it ill vote on it (that includes "silly" args like eval, but i tend to think they lose bec they r easy to answer and typically underwraranted)

answering tirkcs-- if u think an argument doesn't have a warrant then say that-- u cant just win because you think ill intervene and do it for you. if you want me to consider weighing/filter out certain offense and be less "tech" ig then make justifictaions for why I should and that's better for the round or smth

the bar for responses for "silly" tricks (most) is on the floor (its a sliding scale)— i will fw arguments that group tricks beyond the lbl ie k debaters utilizing k links to answer tricks or a theory shell but if something is conceded and u extend a warrant and implication u win that arg

Speaks/Random

ill be more generous on speaks if u send analytics I think its a good practice and helps accesisbility concerns for alot of people - (I decide speaks and then up it my 0.1-0.2 if you did)

be clear and I don't care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization

If when you are debating a k or any argument frankly you say things that have a problematic nature to them even if it isn’t staked the round on I won’t intervene it in my decision but it COULD effect my speaks. just be a respectful person.

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavily in speaks if u do it and crush the win. pls do this it makes me happy I will give u high speaks (update: finally saw this done and done well and gave my second 30 of the season so I do mean it...)

if u impress me or I like how u debate u get high speaks normally im pretty generous but normally if I think ur an elm level debater at face value and you perform well you'll get a 29 or above

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL this is a major ick for me!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO WIN an ivi argument sit on it

i’ll disclose speaks if u ask

transparency-- I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 630pm are times when you need to keep this in mind--if it seems like im doing two things at once dual stimulation keeps my brain focused lol

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Alex Berry Isidore Newman School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 3:32 AM CDT

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

Derek Chang Sage Hill School 3 rounds

Gigi Emerson George Washington HS 4 rounds None

Rosalyn Foster Sage Hill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 4:12 AM PDT

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Norman Frazier Polytechnic School 5 rounds

Dawson Graves Stockdale High School 5 rounds

Suchit Ineni Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 4:26 PM CDT

Hi guys, I'm Suchit. I've debated at Coppell ('23) for 4 years, primarily in world schools, but I have some minimal experience in LD. Half the reason I'm involved in debate is that I have fun doing so, so let's keep it that way and avoid being problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

If I'm judging you in PF/LD, I'm not the most experienced with the format, so slow down a bit for me. You don't have to go conversational, but I'm not used to people spreading. I'd probably be best described as a flay judge. I'm willing to vote on anything, but it's your responsibility to prove why I should vote on it/why I should care. If you're running a k, you're going to have to explain it well to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

WSD:

The biggest thing I have is to be fair when you're debating. If your strategy is to straw man your opponents or use abusive models/definitions, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I like to see well-warranted arguments with impacts that are weighed in the context of the round. I'll try not to intervene whatsoever, but typically, the worse an argument is (in terms of warrants, how true it is, if there are any contradictions, etc.), the lower the burden on the other team there is to refute it. That isn't to say that I won't vote for an argument that I don't like/believe; if an argument is untouched down the bench, I'm left to assume that it's true.

I love principled arguments and have found myself voting on them a lot recently, but that's typically because the practical is too messy or isn't explained well enough. I have no qualms with valuing a principle over a practical, but you generally need to do a lot of work explaining why I should vote on it.

Speaking of which, weighing is a huge thing for me. I'll vote for anything (unproblematic of course), but only if you tell me why I should. This isn't just within a clash, but on an overarching level (meta-weighing). Tell me why some arguments matter more than others. Tell me why some impacts are more important than others. If I don't get any of this, I'm left to intervene and choose what I believe is most important, and you definitely don't want that.

If you have any questions about a round or want further feedback, feel free to reach out to me at suchitineni@gmail.com

Jim Kohn Polytechnic School 5 rounds None

Gowri Mereddy West Windsor Plainsboro High School North 4 rounds

Rajyalakshmi Munnangi West Windsor Plainsboro High School North 4 rounds None

Bret Noble Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy 6 rounds

Patrick Oh Loyola High School 5 rounds

Dawn Paciotti Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 10:11 AM CDT

Paradigm Updated 3/9/25

I have been judging debate for 30 years, and I find it consistently disturbing that our community rewards debaters who try to manipulate a win rather than earning one. If you are attempting to beat your opponents through flow tricks they are unfamiliar with, speed beyond their threshold, or theory and kritiks that hold no meaningful value to you other than a win, I have serious doubts about your respect for the other participants in the debate space. The debate space must be consensual. Debaters enter into the space with the assumption that they have a 50-50 chance of winning, and that they will have equal space to present their arguments and have them legitimately considered by their judges. Judges enter into the space with the assumption that the debaters will attempt to win their ballots rather than exclude them from the round. Speaking faster than an opposing debater or judge is comfortable with is nonconsensual behavior. That's problematic. Making arguments that do not include a warrant, are presented as absolutes that cannot be opposed, and/or cannot be compared to opposing arguments that have equal ground is a strange approach to an activity where judges attempt to make a meaningful choice between two competing claims. Using your knowledge of current debate fads to intimidate your opponents and police their rhetoric and strategy by telling them how they can and cannot respond to you is a) nonconsensual, b) bullying, and c) pretty lame. I understand that organizing arguments into shells can make it easier to follow along. However, using shells as a tool of silencing the other team and not giving them equal space to present their opinion is... c'mon, do I have to say this again? It's nonconsensual. Judges, coaches, debaters - I implore all of you to stop normalizing teenagers acting in nonconsensual ways. It makes the debate space combative and exclusionary, it promotes patriarchal thinking that is never a good idea, and it just makes for blippy, messy, unpleasant debate rounds. Do better. If you come at me with your arguments about tech>truth being more "objective" and leading to less "intervention" I will happily laugh in your face for thirty minutes. There is no such thing as an objective way to choose a winner. There is no such thing as a debate round where a judge does not, at some level, make personal choices about what rhetoric and strategy they valued. The entire glorification of the flow as some 'objective' sacred text is deeply rooted in patriarchal assumptions and preferences, and I like to think that as critical thinkers we can go beyond that as a community. If you want to play a game because winning makes you feel less insecure, go play online poker. If you want to challenge yourself, compare yourself against other worthy opponents, learn something new every round, become a better human, and change the world - stay in speech and debate. Thank you for attending my lecture, and read on for additional paradigm information.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. Not only is that a consent issue, it's a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent and judges before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are all on the same page and that the debate space is inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. I previously bought disclosure theory at national tournaments, but in updating my paradigm today I feel it's incompatible with an inclusive, consensual debate space. If you believe strongly that debaters should disclose, you should come to the room (physical or online) immediately after posting to make a good faith attempt to discuss arguments with your opponent. Breezing on in at the start time and reading theory tells me you care more about an easy win than fair debate prep.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

EVENT SPECIFIC PARADIGMS**

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments should be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please respect my speed issues above. Also, I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

Leila Razi Notre Dame High School 5 rounds

Angelique Ronald Isidore Newman School 5 rounds

William Ryan George Washington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 6:55 PM EDT

Current Coach at University HS Charter, former competitor at George Washington High School. NSDA national finalist, semifinalist, top speaker.

General:

Flow Judge. Will do flow judge things. Add me to the email chain, willryan@g.ucla.edu (or preferably, use speechdrop.net)

Generally tech>truth, but I have my limits. I will vote on truth before voting on presumption unless a team explicitly goes for a presumption warrant.

Fine with speed, keep it reasonable. This is an oral communication activity, understanding what you are saying is still very important. I accept speech docs for evidence, but won't flow off of them. I'll call clear if you are too fast.

I presume to whoever doesn't have the burden of proof. Explain why that's you if you want to win on presumption.

Debate is good and fairness is an intrinsic impact, and I am incredibly unlikely to pick up K teams that argue otherwise. These are views which I am highly unlikely to change.

LD:

Consider me a moderately prog judge. I vastly prefer a smaller number of well warranted positions to a high number of blippy positions, so I'm much more likely to vote for 1NC strategies that focus on 1-2 offs max if you are going for the K or theory, or 3-4 offs if you factor in DAs. That's not a hard limit or anything, but be aware of the risks of me missing something for going for more than that.

I quite enjoy Phil Affs and Negs, especially on value topics, since I both think it is more educational and engages with an area of philosophy that I personally know a lot about.

T is a part of the game, be prepared to hit it. I'd prefer it is reserved for instances of genuinely unfair 1ACs, but given that I am about 40 years behind the curve of T being read as a time suck I doubt that will ever happen.

Tricks/a prioris… not a fan of these kinds of arguments. Highly sympathetic to 1AR Theory responses. Read at your own risk.

I'm inherently incredibly skeptical of the solvency of most Kritiks, but in principle I don't have any objections to them. Read at your own risk.

Trichotomy is a voting issue that I am shocked more teams don't go for. If you run policy arguments on a value topic I'm highly sympathetic to T/Trichot responses.

PF:

Weigh.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

See LD for opinions on Kritiks and Theory. TLDR: Sure, why not.

IVI's seem very silly to me. Read a full theory shell if you want me to vote on some kind of procedural issue.

Please share speech docs before or after a speech so that we don't have to go through the burdensome process of calling for a dozen specific cards. If more than a single piece of evidence is called for please just share an entire doc of all of the cards you read in your speech.

UPDATE: I don't want to be one of those sanctimonious judges who yells at clouds on their paradigm, but evidence ethics has become unacceptably terrible in PF. I reserve the right to unconditionally drop a team if their evidence falls below the standards set in the NSDA unified comprehensive manual. This includes: egregious powertagging, fabricating warrants with bracketed text or miscuts, obviously fictitious evidence from Medium articles, etc. I have noticed this is especially bad with impact evidence. You've been warned.

WSD:

WSD is my favorite format so I will hold debaters to a high standard of performance. I will be very happy if I can see a nuanced debate and will likely award high points.

My stance on number of POIs is that 1st Prop sets the tone for the debate. So if 1st Prop takes 2 POIs, all other speeches should follow that trend. Same if 1st Prop only takes 1. I expect Opp teams to reciprocate at whatever level 1st Prop sets.

I marginally prefer all speeches to take 2 POIs, as I feel it makes the round more interactive and gives more clash during the Opp Bloc Speeches, but I will accommodate whatever the competitors set.

The prop should defend a reasonable interpretation of the motion and the opp should defend a reasonable inverse. Countermodels that are just "the model plus" are abusive and I will vote them down. Conversely, prop models that are just "we fiat the most perfect version of this policy ever because we said so" are very silly and I will likely not buy them.

Huge points for creative and unique argumentation. I hate when debates are stale and predictable, so unique stances can definitely give you a strategic edge. If you are willing to commit from 1st speeches to a creative position, you are likely to get major credit.

A good laugh is never unappreciated, and will bump style. Even a cringe worthy joke is likely going to be endearing, we are all nerds doing politics for fun, after all, so why not go for it :). (That said obviously know context, a super serious motion may not be the best time to crack a joke. All I'm saying is when applicable, try to have fun.)

Alexis Sibanda Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 17, 2024 at 8:05 AM CDT

Hi!

My name is Alexis Sibanda (she/her)

Education:

Coppell High School '23 (Debated policy for 3 years and LD for 1 year)

RPI '27 (pursuing a B.S in Physics and Mathematics with a Pre-Law minor)

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

Middle School Debate Instructor at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
LD Instructor at Mean Green Comet Debate Camp (23-24)

Please add me to the email chain: ratisibbs@gmail.com

General Info:

Firstly, BE RESPECTFUL — Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or un-inclusive - Debate should be a space in which people feel comfortable to exist as themselves and put themselves out there. I will not hesitate to take action if it gets out of hand whether that means docking speaks, voting a team down, or reporting behavior, but y’all should be fine as long as you keep respect in mind. :)

Speaks:

Feel free to spread, just make sure you’re clear. I'll say clear if I can't understand. I’m not too much of a stickler with speaks just keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and high speaker points will likely follow.

Notes:

Feel free to ask any questions you want in round or even through email. I will make sure to answer to the best of my ability! All in all, just make sure you’re having fun! That’s the most important part. :)

Policy Debate/LD:

Topical Policy AFFs:

I completely understand these debates, so go for it! I’m chill with any type of argument as long as they are articulated well. Make sure to weigh the arguments and explain the story of your impacts under your articulated framework. Telling a clear link story is key to these debates!

Go for it! I’m very middle of the road on this. Whoever does the better articulation of why their interp and impacts are better gets my vote on this flow. Don’t just assume that because you win the flow you win the debate. Make sure to articulate as to why this matters and affects the rest of the debate if you want a ballot off of this flow as I am less likely to vote solely on T w/o any type of explanation of that.

Kritiks:

I enjoy K debates! Feel free to go for it (as long as you know what you are doing). I'm a K debater and read policy positions so I get both. I run Black nihilism, afropess, black fem, afrofuturism, etc. but I’m pretty well versed in most lit bases that people tend to read with more familiarity in identity ks but I can still evaluate most others too. Make sure to explain to me what ur scholarship says in your rebuttals especially: I won’t do the work for u. Articulating the story of the K in context with the debate is vital to a ballot.

World Schools:

In WSD, I am a pretty neutral judge. Though most of my debate experience is in policy debate and LD, I also have some experience with judging WSD rounds from working at Coppell Debate Academy and stuff over the years so I have a decent understanding of it. Honestly, just do you and you should be fine.

Style: keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and you should be fine. Be persuasive.

Content: TL;DR - Warrant/Claim/Impact, extensions, weighing, and clash. Every argument has to be fully formed and made explicitly. Don't make me have to intervene in order for the argument to make any type of sense. Explain what it is why it will happen and why I care (heavy on the why I care as that piece will implicate its level of importance on my flow and how I formulate my ballot). Make sure that we are extending our arguments throughout the debate. I don't want to have just random floating arguments on my flow by the final speech I should be able to draw a line back to wherever they came from.

Strategy: Everyone should engage in POIs. Take at least 1-2 per speech and the opposing team should be asking multiple. However, don't be asking them so many that they are unable to complete their speech. Be intentional about the POIs you're making. Make sure you are actively doing something to poke holes in your opponents' arguments or set up your own arguments, etc. Make sure that they are doing something. World Building and world comparison is key.

For the most part, these are my thoughts but feel free to ask me any questions and I would be happy to clarify my stance on anything. Thanks so much. All in all have fun!

Login to Tabroom

Damus Hollywood Invitational

2023 — Sherman Oaks, CA/US

WSD Paradigm List

Judges