Plano West Wolf Classic
2023 — Plano, TX/US
Congressional Debate 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.
Experience: I am a parent judge
Debate/Speech: I primarily focus on how much research you've done and your delivery. You need to have two key communication principles to rank high for me - good verbal and non-verbal communication. If you don't get to the point, your speech lacks anything relevant, or you're just repeating information to fill the time, you won't rank high. I am not a fan of speakers lacking research and knowledge about the topic they're debating. You have to know what you are talking about. I'm looking for more than just surface knowledge about a topic.
i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.
Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)
Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be
3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh
i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority
*I was a high school speech and debate student back in 1994-1998. I mostly competed in extemp, oration, LD debate, and mock trial.
*I judged all through college and volunteer-helped my high school until I became a teacher.
*In 2003 I became a high school teacher/speech and debate coach, coaching all the events.
*I've coached at multiple schools in the last 20 years: Keller, Flower Mound, Lewisville, and now Hebron.
*I'm an NSDA 2-diamond coach. I'm also a published author/poet.
For LD, PF, and Policy:
*Think of me as an "old school" judge. I want to hear traditional cases and arguments. I care about public speaking, philosophy, and logic, not just the evidence cards. Be mindful, reading a card doesn't mean the judge has to accept the argument you're associating with that evidence.
*I will keep a detailed flow during the round. To help me flow, I like to hear each part of the case signposted in each speech. If I don't understand where to flow something, it might not make it onto my flow.
*Please speak at a normal conversational speed. If debaters speak too quickly and are not clear, I will miss arguments/evidence and it won't get onto my flow for the round.
*I encourage all debaters to be as polite and professional as possible. If someone is yelling or being rude, I can't focus on what they are saying and their arguments will not make it onto my flow.
*I like to hear voters in the final speeches. When possible, I will use those voters to determine my RFD.
*If you are sharing case info for the round, here is my email: FeeJ@LISD.net
*I judge speeches on a combination of public speaking skills and the structure/logic/evidence used.
*Be prepared before you get to the round; don't force short breaks so you can have more time to prepare your speeches.
*Do not take excessive breaks/recesses.
*Know your parliamentary procedure. If you think the Presiding Officer has made a mistake, deal with it immediately.
*I like when representatives professionally provide direct clash and reference previous speeches from others in the round.
*For the ballot comments I will do my best to provide both positive comments and something to work on.
*Many of the competitors are very impressive and a lot of round ranking can come down to small details.
*I like clever introductions that really get my attention with personal stories, jokes, etc.
*In poetry rounds, I like to hear the cadence of the poetry; if your poetry performance sounds like a prose performance, you may not rank as high as other competitors who perform poetry as spoken word.
School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas
Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.
Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.
Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.
Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.
Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.
Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.
Tricks: Please don't.
Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.
Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: email@example.com
Hi, I'm Aashik Khakoo, I'm a parent judge but have had 30+ years public speaking experience.
I'd prefer to be on the email chain, but please do not spread speak like you are giving a Ted Talks
I prefer analytical debates over card dumping, and please line by line your opponents case.
Please send documents ahead of time - my email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Keep Cross efficient, and give short answers to all as many questions as possible.
I see debate as a performance, and prefer truth > tech
Please create clash in the round don't just extend your arguments
I will not tolerate speaking over each other, or any racist, sexist, homophobic etc, arguments
In Public Forum and Extemp: I value delivery & analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!
In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.
In DI, HI, DUO, Poetry, and Prose: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure of the piece and mindful storytelling!
Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!
Spoken Word: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure, organization, clear theme, and mindful storytelling!
Are you providing solutions or just giving the go around with your answers?
I prefer the former.
I like confidence in your speeches, it shows that you are serious about what you’re saying.
Do your best!
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.
LD, CX and PF:
Weigh: Weigh arguments as much as you possibly can. Compare clashing arguments as soon as you have the opportunity (for LD, ideally in the NC/1AR). Weighing is more important to my ballot than extra cards. I also love to see risk analysis.
Crystallize + Persuade: Take the time to provide me with a very clear story of why I should vote for your case. Speech and Debate is all about creating a narrative that people want to listen to, so make me want to listen to your narrative! Clearly explain to me why your narrative is the most correct and most important in the round. Tell me the story of your case, and provide me with explicit reasons to vote Aff/Neg.
Signposting: Make it as clear as possible where you are on the flow and where you want me to note your responses. This will help both me and your opponent.
Warrant Your Arguments: Every time you make an argument, you need to provide a clear warrant that proves WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them to your arguments in later speeches. Pointing out the concession of warrants is an excellent way to strengthen link weighing, but be careful not to claim that an argument is conceded when it hasn’t been.
Speed: You may speak quickly, but I would greatly appreciate it if you do not spread. If you do spread, you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags, I will have a difficult time flowing the argument. I will understand your arguments better if you slow down during your signposting in particular. I likely won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed,” and your opponent may not either. If your opponent doesn't understand spreading, DO NOT spread. If you are using speed to increase clash, great, but please do not use it merely to outspread your opponent. I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is helpful and something that we as a Speech and Debate community should encourage more often.
Most importantly: Be honest, fair, kind, and considerate to one another at all times.
Clash: Unless you are the 1st Aff speaker, you need to have clash in every speech. Be sure to mention other representatives by name during clash when referring to specific arguments. Present NEW points -- please do not repeat the same arguments other representatives have already made.
Evidence: Each speech needs a MINIMUM of at least one piece of evidence, ideally more. Evidence should clearly link, demonstrate relevance, and should include dates of publication -- the more current your sources are, the better.
Speeches: Do not read your speech. Engage with your audience, make eye contact, and be respectful. You are judged based on the WHOLE round, not only speeches, so please do not be rude, inattentive or disengaged. If you do not participate much in the round or if you are disrespectful at any point, I will notice. Be kind always, and express counterarguments thoughtfully and politely.
EVERY performance must tell a story.
Extemp: Someone with zero knowledge of your topic prior to the round should be able to walk away from your speech with a basic understanding of your topic and your stance on the issue. You should include a variety of sources, and they should be as current and relevant as possible. I look for organization and structure, but I also like to see some evidence of your personality to keep me engaged. Knowledge of your topic is important, as is rhetoric and logic throughout the speech.
Info: These speeches should be clear and entertaining, and should include concise and organized ideas, thought-provoking takeaways, and interesting, engaging visuals.
Oratory: Original oratories are a place to share personal experiences, either lived or researched, and should showcase your passion for an idea that matters to you.
HI, DI, Duo, POI: Tell a compelling and meaningful story that can be clearly followed. Acting and blocking should ADD to the performance, not detract from it – remember that drama is not always about crying, shrieking, and falling on the ground. Oftentimes, the best performances utilize pauses and soft spoken words more often than noise to convey emotion.
Prose and Poetry: I am an English teacher, so I absolutely love listening to prose and poetry. I will evaluate characterization, insight and understanding as far as the mood and meaning of the piece, how clearly themes and ideas are expressed, and overall delivery (aim for distinct enunciation without sounding pedantic).
Final Interp ranks are based on the story, acting, blocking, message, and overall effect of each performance.
Hi, I'm Greg Zarbo, This is my first time to have the honor to be a judge for a speech and debate tournament. I've have vast experience presenting speeches public speeches. I have been a member of Toastmasters and was an MC at conferences and presented at lunch and learns and corporate dinners,
Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.
LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.
CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.