2024 — Plano, TX/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
***For all of the lifetime of this page, this page will be a work in progress (W.I.P)***
**Up to date for Plano West TFA (09/09/2023) still subject to change through the event**
Some background about me:
I am Hebron Alumni, currently 21 years old, and a Senior at UNT, studying computer science. Some things I like are video games, watching k-dramas, listening to k-pop, and most of all spending time with friends. I have officially debated in NCX, NPF, and VPF. But I have learned and practiced all forms of speech and debate. I never got a chance to go to state or TOC, due to unfortunate circumstances. I have always enjoyed debating, because of the freedom it gave me, to talk about the real world, without any censorship from adults. With that being said, I appreciate those who truly give their best to their event.
If you can tell me who my bias is, then I will give you the win ;)*its a joke, but I will up ur speaks If u get it right
Context to Debate:
Debate is not mathematics. The round does not exist as a confined 3-dimensional space with certain laws of conservation. Debate is a form of conversation where members of the discussion are presenting their point of view and trying to persuade the listener to agree or join their side. With that being said, I expect that everyone in the round understands, that I am also a human being like everyone, and am prone to making a mistake. I will try my 110% to be objective in the round, so don't dismiss what I have said. You might not like it, and think I am wrong, but understand that all decisions made are still subjective to what made sense in my brain. I have been in your shoes, so please be patient and understanding with me, and we will have a great time.
*****Disregard of the rules of ethics and mannerism in a round is an immediate loss, I Do Not Care!*****
I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA, which differ between each event, if there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.
I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA. I uphold congress to the same integrity as CX, LD, and PF. If there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.
CX, LD, PF:
(*For Online Tournaments*)
I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the call. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.
-->see the rest of the paradigms under the in-person section<--
(*For in-person tournaments*)
I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the room. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.
During the round:
All of Crossfire will not be noted down on the flow, I will probably listen to the crossfire to make sure that it is still civil, and noted down any points that might affect speaker points. A reminder: Crossfire is for you to ask questions and clarify anything in the round with opponents. Anything that is brought up and you want me to vote off it, you must bring it up in your following speech.
Progressive Arguments (aka disad, theory, k):
I am fine with any progressive argument except Disclosure Theory. PF is not CX, there is no reason to run such an argument. If you still feel like running it, I will not even consider it part of the round when voting, if I didn't buy the reasoning or analysis. Further, if you run a progressive argument without changing it to be at the VPF level, and I don't understand, I simply won't vote off of it
Overview and Under view:
I encourage having it, so I can have some parameters to vote off of, but I will not take it under consideration if it has not been carried throughout the entire round, in each speech (except rebuttal, ask before the round for more details).
I expect that the contention is readable in 4 minutes without having to spread. So here is your fair warning, DO NOT SPREAD, if I can't follow you at your speed, I will either stop flowing or only write what I hear. This will probably hurt you. So be careful. IF you want to read really fast, send me the speech doc before the round, and make sure that it is the one you are reading. If you fail to do so, I cannot be held responsible for what I missed. I want clear signposting when you transition from Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and Impact.
For the first speaking team, I expect to hear a full frontal attack on the opponent's case. You can preemptively defend your case, but I will On the other hand, I expect the second-speaking team to attack and defend their case in the 4 min. Be sure to warrant analysis. I love to hear about turns on links and impacts, which creates ground for the clash needed in a debate round.
NO NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE SECOND-SPEAKING TEAM! I expect to hear a summary of the round, with collapsing. Be sure to have Impact calculus or weighing.
Give me voters. Why should I vote for you? NO NEW EVIDENCE!
I am not progressive in speaking. Don't spread, speak with emphasis on tags, speak clearly and loudly, and if you can make me laugh, you get higher speaks.
After the Round:
I plan to disclose if I can come up with RFD within 5 minutes. If the round is muddled then, It will take more time, be patient.
The Use of Evidence:
I will ask you to show me evidence if I find it unclear, couldn't hear, or suspicious. I might ask you to pull up the original article, so be ready to find it; the only excuse I will take if the wifi is poor or lacking. I will try to search it up on my computer too, but if I cant find it either, we have problems.
plano west '26
internats qual x6
bolded stuff is tldr
I'd like to think of my style as judging as fairly simple. I look to the weighing debate first, and whoever is winning, I look to their case. If there's a significant risk of offense, I vote there. If there's not, I look to the other team's case and if there's a significant risk of offense then I vote there. If both teams have no offense, I presume neg but can be convinced otherwise. If both teams have marginal risk of offense, then I'll go back to the weighing to see who's winning under a lens of marginal offense (disclaimer: I will 99% intervene so don't do this to me).
By extension of that, the weighing debate is probably the most important thing in the round since often both teams have significant risk of offense. I'll reward smart weighing mechs with high speaks but oftentimes the weighing debate is where warranting and intuition go to die; please don't add to that. In high school, I used try or die weighing a lot, but it shouldn't a shield to hide behind warranted arguments. There is such thing as 0 risk of offense. Also, if you make link level weighing (e.g. prereqs and short circuits) then you need have it accompanied by other weighing mechs (like timeframe) to uplayer the opposing team's link ins.
I'll adapt to anything you do, if you wanna have a lay round I can be a parent, if you want to have a hypertech round, I'm fine with that, and if you wanna have a progressive round, I'll do my best to evaluate it but I'm not as well versed in this kind of debate.
Speed is fine. As long as I have a doc and you are clear (I'll say "clear" twice and then just do my best which prob isn't what you want), go crazy. However, if you're obviously spreading your opponents out of the round, your speaker points will often be less than what you want. That being said, speed should be strategic. There's no point in going 300 wpm where every other word is "uh" and you have terrible word efficiency. Not only does it make it more mind-numbing to listen to, but it also can be really bad because I won't know what to actually flow. Also, just because you're spreading doesn't mean you should be devoid of any vocal inflections. I don't want to hear a 4 minute monotone blur of this background noise in your spreading because everybody is gonna tune out. You can speak fast and still preserve your vocal style like you're speaking at a normal pace. Read the idea, not just the words on the page.
On theory, I default to yes RVIs, reasonability > CIs, and DTA. Why? So you actually read warrants why RVIs are bad, why CIs are better, and why you should DTD. I don't actually believe it, but just wanna make sure y'all are reading these arguments. An "RVI" for my sake is a defensive argument on the theory layer (e.g. a counterinterp that debaters don't have to disclose is probably responded to via no RVIs while a counterinterp that debaters SHOULDN'T disclose is not an RVI), if you really want to convince me otherwise, you have to explain why when you originally read the shell. Friv theory makes me mad but ig it's fine, but the threshold of responses is incredibly low and if you're doing it against novices, expect your speaks to suffer.
On kritiks, I am definitely not the judge for you to be reading it. I will do my best to evaluate and do all that stuff, but I am a substance debater at heart and especially with K affs am very clueless on the lit and how to break certain areas of clash. If you still wanna read it, go ahead, but explain the argument so a person not well-versed with the lit can understand.
On substance rounds, I think that spamming cotentions often leaves me in a situation where I don't know how to evaluate arugments and where frankly backhalf has little to no warranting. Reading 2 or 3 arguments with solid warranting and spikes and maybe a hidden link is far more appealing to me as a judge than 5 blips of arguments. By extension, turns in rebuttal also require all parts of an argument: uniqueness (a little more leniant on that), link, internal link, imapct, AND WEIGHING. I'm not voting for a turn without warranting or an impact in rebuttal that somehow gains all of those things in the backhalf.
Conceded arguments are true, but only the conceded parts. For example, if you read evidence that a certain policy leads to a certain bad outcome, but the other team isn't advocating for that policy, then I'm not voting on the argument. Moreover, teams can respond to weighing based on conceded arguments, so just because you conceded a turn or hidden link doesn't mean it's a game over issue for you. If you concede weighing, then it'll be tough but you can still justify why your weighing uplayers.
Hi there! I’m a new judge!
tech > truth, tabula rasa, Currently debating for jasper pf
-round etiquette is important and I don't condone abusive behaviour - if I feel you make the debate space unsafe, I will give you auto loss and lowest speaks
-fine with any speed - if your opponents can't handle speed, it is courteous not to spread. At that point, you would be winning not because you have genuinely won, but just because your opponents can't hear what you said
-if you are going very fast, send me and your opponents your case
-will evaluate any arguments tbh but like ur in middle school w middle school times if u read a shell i'll kms (tricks may go over my head if you don't implicate them)
-I'm generous with speaks it's definitely possible to get 30 speaks (see below)
-If you have questions please ask.
did OO for a short while so i get how time signals work but id prefer if an audience member did it
be captivating. tell a story.
-don't be loud just to be loud. use your voice in a purposeful way
-this is your opportunity to make your voice heard.
-Be respectful to all groups of people. I do not tolerate racism sexism homophobia transphobia etc.
-pauses and emphasis
-movement and blocking are important- don't just stand there
how to get extra speaks ???? -
wordplay in your speeches +1
give me food +2
ask meaningful questions before round +1
perform a drake song (an excerpt not the whole thing) +1.5
I'm a typical "some random guy's parent", that already tells a lot. So please address your argument clearly and speak slowly, please DO NOT spread. I will weigh style and arguments equally, and weigh analytics over evidence. Good luck guys!
Hello! I'm Mr.Bergeron, and I'm excited to be judging your round today. I have a background in coaching and competing all platforms of debate (minus Congress), both at the high school and collegiate levels. I competed in these formats before transferring to UT Austin, where I continued my involvement in individual events. Today, my judging approach is rooted in the importance of flowing, realistic links to evidence-supported impacts, and an evaluative weighing of the round.
- I will be closely following the flow throughout the round. Clear organization and strategic use of cross-applications will be rewarded.
- Be sure to signpost and extend arguments throughout the round
Realistic Links to Evidence:
- Ensure that your links to evidence are well-explained and supported.
- Impact analysis is key. Clearly articulate the implications and significance of your arguments in the round.
- Show how your impacts outweigh your opponent's, and be ready to explain why certain impacts should be prioritized over others.
Weighing the Round:
- I appreciate debaters who engage in active weighing throughout the round. Compare and contrast arguments to guide me in evaluating their relative importance.
- Make sure to address and resolve conflicting impacts, demonstrating a deep understanding of the round's dynamics.
- My decision will be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the entire debate. This includes the quality of arguments, strategic choices, and overall performance.
- I value debaters who adapt to their opponent's arguments, demonstrate critical thinking, and can pivot their strategy when needed.
Remember, clarity is key. Speak at a pace that is comfortable and clear for you, your opponents, and me (I am fine with speed but be clear and remember the event I am judging in). I look forward to a thought-provoking and well-debated round. Good luck!
Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26
firstname.lastname@example.org (put me on the chain please! and reach out to me if you have any questions/concerns/literally anything)
Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. In worlds, I did the ¼ and 3 and I won TFA state in 2021. In PF, I qualified for TFA state in my freshman and sophomore years and I broke at a few bid tournaments. I’ve been judging a mix of PF and WSD ever since I graduated. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Sanjay Shori, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala.
TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary
My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and preferences can be overridden by good debating. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, the ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.
I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.
Things that matter for both PF and Worlds: I couldn’t care less about what you wear or whether you sit or stand, please do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable. I would classify myself as tech > truth, but my threshold for tech decreases the more you forgo truth. In simpler terms, run whatever argument you want, but the more ridiculous it is, the more I’m willing to buy responses to that argument. Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(. if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian: for pfers, auto 30. for wsders, +1 speaker point
It’s been a while since I’ve been involved in PF, so you’d probably best classify me as a flay judge. While I’m not up-to-date on the topic, I catch on to arguments pretty quickly. I can keep up with some speed but if you’re planning on going >200wpm, please send a doc!!
Substance: Love a good substance debate. No new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in second summary. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing) in final focus.
Cross: I can’t even put into words how much I don’t care about cross. I’m not voting off anything in cross so if anything important was said, it needs to be in a speech. Please feel free to use cross for prep if you want (#abolishgrandcross), however if you choose to do it, whatever you say is binding.
Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for it. You can make “bUt tHiS iS pF" as a response but I won’t like it. If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.
Theory: I’m most familiar with basic theory shells such as disclosure, paraphrase, etc, but you would make my life 10x easier if you ran them in shell format. I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. If you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.
Kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.
Everything else: run them at your own risk just please overexplain
Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.
Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.
Content: Like I mentioned earlier, I’m tech > truth, so feel free to run whatever argument you want as long as it’s well-warranted. This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.
Strategy: This is the aspect of the debate I pay the most attention to since at the end of the day, I am a flow judge and whoever wins on the flow wins the round. I absolutely love seeing weighing, I think it’s a really important aspect of debate that a lot of WSDers ignore. If you win the weighing, and you win your link into the weighing, you win the round. Please be comparative to your opponent’s specific arguments instead of just repeating yours over and over. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time, so I absolutely love seeing unique strats. I also love it when teams make a clear worlds comparison analysis. Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over.
Style: Putting on a good performance may get you higher speaks, but it won’t win you the round. That being said, I do appreciate humor and seeing your personality in the speech, as long as you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. The main way I award style points is by how organized and easy to flow your speeches are. I genuinely don’t understand why this activity is so bad at signposting, please tell me where you are on the flow or else I won’t know what to do with your argument.
Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)
I am a parent judge, and have been judging PF for about two years. I have judged some LD as well.
For PF, I appreciate evidence based arguments, with details when needed. PF is time sensitive, and so manage your time carefully when you get into detailed explanations.
Speed is fine as a long as its clear and understandable.
Be respectful to others. Although this is a tournament, make it a fun. educational experience.
Please add me to the email chain at email@example.com
Good luck !
Please extend your case in summary and final. This is the only way you can win offense on your case so please do it. If you have questions about how to extend please don’t be afraid to ask because this is vital for winning rounds.
I agree with Aaryan Tomar's paradigm
Hello friends! I am a junior at Plano West Senior High and I'm super excited to be judging your debate round!
MOST IMPORTANT: dont make the debate space feel unsafe. If you say anything discriminatory or problematic its an auto loss. I value a debate space where everyone feels safe and included
Speed is annoying, best to go at a slow to moderate pace. Also if you're going fast, it's your fault if i miss something
I do public forum debate but be patient if I'm judging something else. Idk the format for LD and Policy too well
I usually won't intervene but make realistic arguments. I'll be more likely to give you higher speaks and it'll be easier for me to flow your side of the round
Make sure you have uniqueness, links, and impacts. Remember that whoever wins the uniqueness is the most likely to win the round if you flesh out your warrants and impacts
I prefer you collapse. It makes the round cleaner and makes it easier for you to have a strong argument. With limited time in the backhalf, one clean argument is a lot easier to vote on than multiple muddles up arguments
Frontline in second rebuttal or first summary. Responses the other team makes that you don't frontline in those speeches will be considered conceded.
I will only vote on something extended in both summary and final focus. Make sure you introduce weighing in summary or earlier because I won't buy new weighing in ff
Assume i have no topic knowledge because I probably dont. Explain everything properly if you want me to evaluate it
If im judging novice or middle school, don't run prog
Unless the tournament doesn't let me, I'll disclose my decision in round. Under the limited time we have in round, I'm good with questions about my decision.
These are just my preferences. In the end this is your round and its my job to adapt. Debate the way that works for you.
Have fun in round and good luck!
I mainly judge PF events. I am an avid history and current affairs buff. I also do research on resolutions that are being debated so I can follow positive and negative arguments.
As a judge I will be evaluating debaters for their overall persuasiveness, which in my view has 2 elements:
1. Logic of argument: The argument must be coherent and it must be in the context of the resolution. It is important not to drift away from the resolution. Drift happens when a debater discusses implications of the resolution and then implications of implications and so on. Use the resolution as a guide and tie your arguments back to the resolution at hand. And, successively build your position, while undermining your opponents arguments.
2. Presentation style: This includes clarity of speech and body language. Debaters have limited time so they must speak at a good clip but it cannot come at the cost of clarity in speech. Vigorous but respectful disagreement with opposing team is expected. Before, starting your speaking time give a one sentence overview of how you will proceed. For example, "First I will refute my opponents positive or negative points, then I will explain and provide evidence of the points I made in my opening remarks", etc. Finally, a word of caution about "spreading", it does not work. If your goal is to read out loud as many words as you can in your allocated time, you will almost certainly loose points.
The golden rule is not to loose your audience. As a judge, I am the audience and debaters will have my undivided attention. But if a debater loses me, they will lose points.
Logic, reason, explanation, impacts. Speed is fine, but winning isn't achieved by numerosity alone: a single quality argument can win the day, particularly if I'm convinced (by you) of why that issue/point matters more than all the others.
Kritik is fine; progressive plans/args/cases are fine--in both cases the argument just needs to make sense.
For congress, I really like crystalization speeches. I tend to observe that bill/reso sponsorship speeches handicap the speaker's ability to demonstrate their thoughtful analysis of counterarguments, so folks should endeavor to give speeches in the whole lifecycle of the debate on bills throughout the session (e.g., don't just give 3 sponsorship speeches). Rehashing previously-argued points without adding value is frowned upon. Last, thinking/arguments that demonstrate an appreciation for second order and third order consequences of a bill are highly respected.
Bit of background: former debater; competed on national circuit in Congress and Extemp; competed statewide in LD, Policy, PF, and Oratory. Now a practicing lawyer. I read, a lot.
Speech kid turned judge. Please try to accommodate on speaking speed/clarity and no theory/kritiks.
firstname.lastname@example.org for any email chains.
NOVICE JUDGE ONLY
hi! i'm arrman, i've debated pf on the national circuit for three years as plano west LK and jasper LK. three time nsda nationals qualifier and gold toc qualifier.
DON'T BE ANY OF THE ISM'S, AUTO L AND LOWEST SPEAKS POSSIBLE IF YOU ARE.
follow @thedebatehotline on insta and show me proof that you did for an auto 30 speaks!
substance debate, copied from will pirone's paradigm:
Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.I enjoy voting on creative, fun argumentsI haven't heard before.
Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.
I tend to be very facially expressivewhen judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech.Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.
Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”
If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.
If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.
Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.
Please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.
In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).On a similar note,make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.
Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.
progressive debate, also copied from will pirone's paradigm:
1 - framing, topical k's, theory, da's
3 - non topical k's
4 - tricks
I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTD.
If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.
*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.
I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with cap, set col, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.
No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.
If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.
Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are silly billy, read an actual one.
not experienced with them because i do pf but i understand them, read what you want.
read what you want, i love framing and would be happy to evaluate a framing debate.
if you're a decent human being, you get a 29!
speaks can only go up from there based on how well you debate.
most importantly, have fun! debate isn't always the best but i just want y'all to have the best experience possible!
My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a lay judge with a solid amount of judging experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace with emphasis on quality of your argument rather than quantity. Do not spread and do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at email@example.com.
I don't base my judgment on your crossfire, so please don't use it to persuade me. Crossfire is for you to understand your opponent's case and address it in your next speeches. Pretend I'm not listening during crossfire. Make your case in the next speech.
If you're presenting an extinction argument, make sure it's believable. For instance, arguing that affirming or negating healthcare for all could lead to nuclear war and extinction seems far-fetched. If your opponents present an extension argument that seems implausible, address it. It shouldn't only be me thinking it's not plausible.
I assess your speaker points based on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, and eye contact. Sometimes, I may give low scores.
I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!
Best of luck!
If you plan on speaking above 200 wpm, you need to send a speech doc 2 minutes before you begin speaking. If you don't, I can't guarantee that I'll catch everything you say and if I don't catch it, I can't judge it.
Please be respectful to myself and your fellow contestants. If not, your speaker points will be docked and you may lose the ballot regardless of arguments made.
I am a traditional parent/judge who votes off the flow, so if you plan on reading progressive arguments, make sure you explain them well.
Offense and Defense is sticky within reason.
I am a parent judge, and I look for:
Consistency- Meaning you are not stumbling on your words or stuttering too much.
Tone- Appropriately speaking in a high or low voice (If it's clear that you're supposed to speak at either a high or low voice at certain points in your speech, or if you just have a naturally high- or low-pitched voice, then that is fine)
Content- Please keep your content easy to flow and understandable, but if it's something like congress, extemp, LD, PF, policy, or world schools, and If I do not understand the content all of the time, I'm still able to tell if your content is good (& clear) or not.
CONFLICTS JOHN PAUL II HS, JPII, PLANO ISD
I teach AP World History, World History-Honors and World History at Clark HS - Plano ISD. At my previous job, I was the assistant debate coach for four years where I specialize in research in all forms of debate, foreign and domestic extemp.
Decades ago at Jesuit of Dallas and Georgetown University in the 1970s and early 1980s I debated. While I began in Policy/CX, I gravitated towards Model UN debate on the college circuit. As a teacher I was the Academic Decathlon lead coach for 15 years and assisted with it later as an administrator for a total of 23 years. While coaching I learned to judge LD, PF and Domestic and Foreign Extemp. Since 2015 I was the Assistant Debate and Speech Coach at John Paul II HS and have added PFD. Since 2021, I have worked in Plano ISD and now judge as Plano and my school need me.
My degrees are a BS in Foreign Service and a Masters of Arts in Modern History. I am bilingual in Spanish and German and have been a teacher since 1988. I have also been a public school district coordinator of social studies, foreign languages and gifted education as well as a high school coordinator of curriculum. I have taught college and currently teach AP World History. I am a national consultant for AP World History and a national reader of AP essays.
JUDGING, PARADIGMS, PREFERENCES
I am familiar with almost any and every topic you will have. I was trained to be a diplomat and opted not to work for the Central Intelligence Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency on moral grounds. I am a voracious daily reader of newspapers, magazines, fiction, history, politics, economics and religion. And I have a strong philosophical background thanks to eight years of a Jesuit education. I am not a big fan of theoretical arguments so much as substantiated points and I really need to be able to follow your case. Roadmaps and sign-posting help! I am a big-picture judge. Defending against a single card or argument is not as important as the whole case. And I would rather see a few well-articulated points than a lot of little points which seemingly bury me and your opponent under minutia.
As a judge I am very traditional - I prefer old-school value and criterion! I hate spreading – do not lose accuracy and articulation for speed. Please stand when you present. And while I know students like to flash cases, somehow I grew up in a day when this was like giving away the playbook. I like it when debaters ask to see each other’s cards and evidence. I do not like shocks or oddities that involve contradiction of reality and thought. But as I have told my own debaters after returning from summer camps, I will try to accurately and intelligently judge any debate. Be forewarned however.
Just because I speak German and am familiar with Kritik theory does not mean that I am a fan of it. I am also not a very good judge of Kritik so run it at your own risk. Please take time to explain your K to me and do not assume I have read your authors, content, etc.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best at the end of each round to highlight a few things each debater can improve upon – I will even suggest cases, reads, and cards. I do not like to disclose because I have to read my notes and think sometimes before making a final decision. I do give low point wins but rarely. My hopes are that you will always debate to the best of your abilities.
Lastly, debate should not be a diatribe or show of hostility. For me while debate can be confrontational, in so many ways I am a British barrister or solicitor. I would prefer that all debaters be civil towards each other – treat the room as if you were in a court of law. And this judge insists upon professionalism and correct decorum. I would rather not have to cite any participants for contempt in speaker points. And I deplore racism, ethnic bias, gender bias, homophobia, and religious bias either for or against a faith or lack of faith.
Your evidence is important. And just dropping a card, a name and a citation is dumb without an explanation to what the source believes and why it supports your argument or refutes your opponent’s argument. State or question the qualification of authors and compare their warrants. This is critical in Advanced Placement historical writing and in all debates I judge!
It is my opinion that current debaters waste Cross-Examination time far too much. Learn to use it well. Please ask and answer questions.
While Policy has a 2AC, LD does not have it in the same way. This means that AC has to use the 1 AR much more aggressively than Policy. I like to see 1 AR go on the offense on as many of the negative positions, points as possible. This scores voters for me.
Please tell me why you should win, why your opponent should not win and prove it. It is likely your final statement in a court of law. And you can win or lose on how you handle voters. I vote on what I have been able to flow and understand. This begins with who in my opinion won the framework debate. Then I look for evidence to either substantiate my belief or refute it.
I love PF. As with other types of debate, I prefer substance to delivery and style. Content is rarely a problem for me. I read constantly. My first year with PF I researched and presented Catalonian independence as my first venture into teaching PF. For me it was part of being a Spanish-speaker, an FC Barcelona fan and a historian of European history and politics!
While this was my initial introduction in 1973 to Debate at Jesuit, later I was lost to other types of debate. I wanted to be a diplomat rather than a lawyer. And as a devout Catholic with strong Jewish tendencies, life is often more about abstract issues of faith and philosophy rather than the law which the old Romans so loved. Ergo I found I like other forms of debate. However in a crunch when a tournament needs to push a ballot and procure a judge, I would do it. But like my Latin, my CX is rusty. I understand more than I know but am really out of touch. So it is best if you assume nothing if you have me in a CX round. I will have a lot of ideas about your topic as I have successful CX students in our program. They constantly ask me for research.
Bottom line - I am a Stock Issues Paradigm judge. Avoid spreading - speak slowly. After all slowing down still means you could be speeding! And flesh out your arguments.
Computers have become a part of debate whether I like it or not. All debaters should have to suffer making cards, carrying vast card files around, and developing both research skills and muscles. OK, enough reminiscing.
Flash, jump cases and documents in a timely manner – before or at worse, immediately at the end of a speech to allow them time to prepare. I will not count the time against you.
Debating with a laptop is a choice but also sadly a necessity. If your opponent does not have one, be prepared to show him/her your laptop or surrender it to him/her as needed. Your need to prep is outweighed by your opponent’s need for that information.
I have been a public speaker during my school, college and work years. Its something I have always enjoyed doing.
I am not an expert in PF by any stretch but understand the format. Things which appeal to me - clarity of thought / argument, research and data backup in framing arguments, voice projection and intonation, and ability to ask sharp and direct questions.
Please do not be too fast in speaking, please be respectful to your opponents at all times, and please stick to schedule.
I hope to enjoy this tourament with you guys and wish you all the best!
Treat me like a lay judge, so please don't spread-if I'm a bit slow, please bear with me
I'd prefer if you didn't run theory shells or Ks, but if you choose to do so, please explain in depth.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, or rudeness/bigotry of any kind will result in 0 speaks and an auto loss
Tech > truth, but keep your arguments sensible
I encourage you to share your case document (PDF format) with me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Speak Loud and clear.. Have fun debating!
Please speak slowly and clearly. Cite your sources as much as possible. Please no spreading. If you call for evidence outside of cross-ex, you will be using your prep time. Also, please don't ask really long questions during cross-ex, and actually let the other team answer. I am a parent judge. Debate is about having fun, so enjoy it!
I'M A NEW PARENT JUDGE. This is my first time ever judging a debate.
I expect the debate topic to be explained clearly and not too fast. No spreading.
Rudeness will result in low points.
I am a current PF debater for Grapevine Highschool, I have history in LD and Congress. I have broken at Emory and multiple local tournaments.
Im a pretty chill judge feel free to talk about music and pop culture or just talk about rounds with me. That being said I like a light round but don’t sacrifice that for taking away from serious topics.
If you insult your opponents or make any derogatory claims except a loss
I definitely prefer more lay appeal. I like composed articulate speaking and points. That being said I’m good with progressive arguments NO DISCLOSURE THEROY though. For spreading all I ask is send me the file if you intend to spread. DONT SPREAD AGAINST A NOVICE.
GIVE ME OFF-TIME ROADMAPS
Please extend your arguments and impacts through all speeches.
Rebuttals: First Speakers should really just attack the opposition but remember to extend. Second Speakers: I expect both offense and defense.
Summary: Give me offense and defense then weighing
Final Focus: VOTERS what does the round collapse to? What should I vote off of?
Evidence abuse: If your evidence is inappropriately highlighted I will not weigh the card. So make sure the card says what the tagline does or I will be very disappointed.
Crossfire: I prefer aggressive crossfires not rude just aggressive I also do weigh crossfire in the round so if you concede to a question I will take that as a valid warrant.
I go off the flow I’m aware of what my paradigm says but if you’re opponent for example concedes a question and you don’t bring it up then obviously it doesn’t matter. I can’t read you’re mind please explain to me your warrant don’t just say “they concede and drop this”
Debate is fun, these are serious topics but to quote the poet 21 Savage “how many problems you got? A lot” we all have actual problems in our lives with real magnitudes, timeframes, and probabilities so please enjoy and have fun in debate don’t make it another thing you’re constantly worried about.
I will give you extra speaker points for jokes and references.
I am the coach of a highly successful speech and debate team in Plano, TX. I am a two diamond coach in the NSDA and coach all debate events. In college, I was a policy debater and still enjoy the nuances of policy debate. Overall, I follow the logic in debate. I don't care about how you look, but I always follow the logic. As such, I always flow every round. If I am sitting there looking at you while you are delivering, that is a bad sign because you are not giving me arguments to flow. I am quite happy to give a low point win if one debater is a fantastic speaker but the other debater had the best arguments. My paradigms for the different debates are as follows:
L/D: I am more of a traditionalist with L/D debate. You can speak fast, but I want to know you can communicate. Don't spread. I enjoy the philosophical aspects to LD, but as an old policy debater, you must back up what you say with evidence. Give me a value and go deep with your framework. Because I was a policy debater, I do enjoy unique cases and actually believe that a K is fun in LD. So, feel free to give a unique perspective on your resolution. However, as I stated earlier, communicate it to me. In Policy, I don't care about the dressing, but in LD I do.
PFD: Show me you can work as a team. I am fine with you dividing up the workload. I am a framework judge. Really explain your FW, don't just say, "Judge, you must vote this way if..." In reality, I can do what I want. If I really should vote a certain way "if.." then explain why fully. For your rebuttals, group your arguments. Kick out what doesn't work. Again, give me something to flow. I want deep warranting. Explain, explain, explain.
Policy: I love policy! Topicality is one of my favorite arguments. Disads need to be bad, really bad. Don't give "might happens" as the fact that they "might not" is running through my mind. Don't whine and call arguments by your opponent abusive, unless they truly are. I rarely agree when debaters call the opponents arguments abusive. This is debate, research and develop arguments of your own and stop complaining that you didn't have time. Your harms need to be significant as do any advantages. K's are fine, but they better be explained well.
Speech: For oratory and Informative speaking, I am looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech. I do not want an act, I want to know you care about the topic you are presenting and that this is a speech, not an act.
Interp: I try really hard not to take notes during your performance as I want to give you my full attention. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, that is a great thing indeed. It means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I love that. I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well you performed that selection.
Congress: Congress is a wonderful event. I want you to clash with the other debaters in the chamber. If we are in the fourth or fifth speech on a particular piece of legislation, you better be bringing something new for argumentation or your speech will not be ranked high. I judge on the quality of your research.
hi guys! i'm currently attending jasper high school, and i'll be going to plano west in a year. i've been debating for 4 years approx, and i'm well-versed in pf and most ies.
read bold for tldr
add me to the email chain, email@example.com
for general etiquette, don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. because debate is supposed to be about having fun and education. basically, if you make the debate space unsafe i will drop you and and best give you lowest speaks. please don't be rude in cross or to your opponents in general, just be chill and have fun debating.
i'm generally good with speed as long as you send a doc. I'll flow what i can understand if you don't send a doc. don't spread just for the sake of spreading, make sure the arguments you make are good and can win you the round.
for speaking,try not to only look at your computer the whole time. it's generally a good skill to be able to make eye contact with judges in lay rounds, plus i don't want to hear 1 hour of speeches of a doc because then it's pointless to have speakers.do your best to have vocal inflections. remember, you are still giving a speech. it's going to be really boring to me if everything sounds the same. for big numbers and impacts, having vocal modulations to show me what's important will help a lot.
i evaluate by looking at the weighing first. if you are winning the weighing, I'll look to you're case first and see if you're winning case. if you're not winning case, I'll look to the second most probably link into the weighing if there is one. if neither side links into weighing, ill look to the side with the most offense and the best weighed impacts in the round. that being said,please extend weighing in summary and final. defense is not sticky. i won't shadow extend things for you. also,please do comparative weighing or metaweighing so i get a sense of who's weighing i should look to in round.
substance: I'll understand most arguments but I'll need you to explain them thoroughly in the backhalf of the debate if you want me to vote off of it. i need clear extensions of the whole argument extended in the backhalf. if you want to make responses to their case, the responses should be in rebuttal. I'll grant a little leeway if your extensions of responses are slightly blippy in the backhalf as long as they were super well warranted in rebuttal. make sure you collapse in the backhalf. if you want to go for 3 arguments in summary, that's fine but i'm going to be really confused on where to look especially if you don't weigh. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!
theory: i'm probably not the best person to read theory on. i understand how theory debate works but i've never really debated it much myself. if you're going to read interps, you need to have warrants for every part of your shell. you buy yes RVIs or DTDs or anything, make sure you read warrants. i'll vote on the interp that best wins under the best weighing that is done in the round. the best bet would probably be to read offensive counterinterps and just weigh them.
kritiks: i like k debate but if you're going to read k's or responses to k's make sure you don't just read cards but actually explain what each response means in the context of the round. if an argument only gets crystallized for me in like 2nd summary i'm probably not voting on it. that being said, i won't vote of new arguments past 2nd summary unless there's conceded warrants as to why new responses should be allowed. but also if you're reading k's in middle school what are you doing.
i don't really know much about congress, but just make smart arguments and be perceptually strong. look at my pf paradigm for info about how i evaluate arguments in general
same thing applies here as it does for debate, don't be rude, sexist, homophobic, etc. or i will rank you super low
OI: freytag's pyramid, tell a story and be captivating
binder events: please look up from your binder and don't just read off of it, i won't be able to connect to you as well if i never get to look at your face
memorized events: have fun and use facial expressions, don't just be loud to be loud, if you mess up it's totally okay but just try to keep going, use blocking appropriately and make sure it works with the scene (basically have purposeful movements)
oratory: i'll try to also listen to content just as much as delivery, i will like most subject matter as long as it doesn't discriminate against a certain group of people, make sure your speech is organized (just make sure i'm not confused by the end of the speech), have good organization
extemp: i'm not going to lie i have very little experience in extemp, i'll mostly focus on delivery and how well you present yourself, i'll do my best to follow content so make it easy for me to understand your points, please come to round prepared (one time someone pulled up to round and didn't know he was supposed to draw lol), please use an AGD and have all the components of a speech
just have fun and do your best :)
I debated Public Forum 4 years in High school
All I ask is that you speak clearly and at an understandable pace. If I can't hear you I cannot flow your arguments.
I default to weighing the round off of impacts I suggest making time in your speech for impact analysis especially in summary and final those speeches should be used to crystalize your main arguments not try and extend everything thats been said in the round. Use framing like probability, timeframe, and magnitude to your advantage by comparing directly with your opponents impacts and tell me why your arguments are more important.
Make sure you warrant clearly. Impacts don't mean much if you don't have a solid link chain you can defend and is logical.
I also like hearing unique and niche arguments.
Besides that it's your round debate it how you like.
Hello, I'm a parent judge. I prefer slower and clearer speaking. I will vote on arguments with the best logic and supporting evidence.