Cedar Ridge Raiders Invitational
2023 — Round Rock, TX/US
PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideLC Anderson 22
UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant
email for email chains:
ld: Tech > Truth
Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.
Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters.
Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.
K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.
phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time
Other things:
Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.
Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability
Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking
Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo
if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!
pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision
congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower
feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!
have fun!!
Background
Competed in PF at Wylie High School in Wylie, Tx for 2 years.
Currently I'm a Junior at UT Austin.
Add me to email chain: rsinghdhesi0@gmail.com
PF
Short Version: I'm your average PF flow judge. Debate is a game. This paradigm is a set of rules that I generally believe to be good. However nothing is concrete. If you tell me to evaluate something a different way and I think you win that argument then that’s what I will do.
Long Version:
1) I'm fine with speed but not full spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast.
2) please weigh
3) I think second rebuttal should respond to EVERYTHING in first rebuttal that you want to go for. This can be hard with time so at the very least respond to turns or I will consider them conceded. I think this is very important for the overall fairness of the round, because the 2nd speaking advantage in PF is crazy.
4) summaries are 3 minutes now – defense isn't sticky.
5) Offense you want me to vote on should be in both summary and final focus.
6) I will ALWAYS prefer logical analysis and warranting over unwarranted evidence.
7) no independent offense in second rebuttal.
8) Framing is cool but please warrant it.
9) I expect you to go line by line in every speech.
Some other things:
Evidence
- tell me to call it if you think it's been miscut
- If I call a piece of evidence please give me the cut card not a pdf or website.
Theory, Ks, etc.
- I am not super confident in my ability to correctly evaluate these, so run at your own risk.
This is now my second year judging. I've judged both speech events and PF and am comfortable with both. I'll be extending into LD this year.
I am a widely-informed, reasonably well-read person. That being said, I do my best to put my personal biases aside and base my decisions on the quality of what is presented.
I place a premium on clear communication. The best arguments in the world are meaningless if they're too full of jargon to be understood by non-experts, too fast to be comprehended (no spreading please!), or too disorganized to support each other. However, if English is not your native language, do not fear — I will not penalize you for not being a native speaker.
I follow the news religiously and have done so for a very long time. I'll ask to see your evidence if it sounds suspect to me.
I am very sensitive to unsupported claims, and to efforts to distort evidence in order to make a rhetorical point. I am also turned off by straw-man arguments, and by putting words into your opponents' mouths. I am annoyed by hyperbolic claims not justified by evidence. Make a strong case while sticking to what your evidence actually says and to what your opponents actually say, and you will win me over.
I am fond of conciseness and precision. I enjoy contentions that complement each other so that the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. I appreciate good humor, but it has to effectively serve your argument or undermine your opponents' — it shouldn't be just a flourish.
I respect emotion — we are humans, not Vulcans. Emotion is a powerful rhetorical tool. If you use it authentically in a well-constructed argument, I will reward it. However, keep it civil — demeaning or derogatory comments directed at your opponents will alienate me. You can savage their arguments, but not their character.
When asking questions, give your opponent space to answer without interrupting. When answering questions, say what you need to without filibustering — if you're filling the time with rubbish (to use a more polite term), I will know. I admire incisive follow-up questions.
I look forward to being convinced!
Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is Bixba@eanesisd.net.
CX - I'm a Policy Maker, so I want to vote for something rather than against something. I like a NON-TOPICAL Counter Plans or a Kritik with a good Alternative. I will vote on Topicality if the Aff is proven not to be Topical. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Please do NOT spread. You must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Have all evidence you plan to read up on your computer. If you take your time sharing evidence when requested, that is free prep time for your opponent, and I do not expect them to stop prepping while you find the card(s) to send. While I prefer closed CX, I will entertain open CX, but be careful not to dominate your partner as that could cost them speaker points. Of course, remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points. While I was a debater in high school and college and I've coached for two decades now, treat me like maybe a step up from Lay Judge. I want you to fully and completely state your positions in a comprehensible manner.
LD - I guess I'm an old school LD judge. I expect to be able to identify your Value and Criterion and that is the lens by which I weigh the round. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Therefore, I will vote on Topicality if the Aff is proven not to be Topical. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Please do NOT spread. You must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Have all evidence you plan to read up on your computer. If you take your time sharing evidence when requested, that is free prep time for your opponent, and I do not expect them to stop prepping while you find the card(s) to send. Of course, remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points. While I was a debater in high school and college and I've coached for two decades now, treat me like maybe a step up from Lay Judge. I want you to fully and completely state your positions in a comprehensible manner.
PF - I see PF as a watered down CX debate minus the Plan Text, if I'm being honest. So, see the paradigm for CX above please.
Congress - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.
World Schools - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.
Interp - The most important thing to me in an Interp performance is to portray genuine emotion. If you really feel it, the audience will too. Be a good audience member by avoiding distractions and giving your complete attention to the competitor performing at the moment. Being a good audience member also means staying the entire time unless you are cross entered as well as providing appropriate nonverbal feedback to the performance. Please don't "mean mug" or attempt to nonverbally intimidate another competitor. I appreciate a good binder trick and a creative approach while maintaining author's intent. In the Intro, I would ideally like a conversational tone that allows me to meet you, displays your understanding and connection to the subject matter, and sets up the performance well. Literature that contains profanity does not bother me as long as the profanity adds something to the message and is not superfluous.
Extemp - Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with an introduction, 2-3 main points, and a conclusion. I encourage 7-10 scholarly source citations throughout and would like to see that the sources add substance to the speech. Using a variety of types of sources such as state, national, and international as well as think tanks, periodicals, and books adds to the overall credibility of the presentation. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet informative or persuasive.
DEb8 don’t H8.
Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.
Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.
T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.
Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.
DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.
CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.
K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.
K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.
Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.
My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.
Hey guys! My name is Hrishi (pronounced Rishi). I competed in Public-Forum Debate for four years, and qualified to TFA state three times, so I consider myself a flow debater/judge.
Here are a few basic things to help y'all understand me as a judge.
Pre-Round things
- Pre-Flow before the round starts
- Create the email chain before round starts, my email is linked below.
Tech things
1. Extensions are important. If you want to go for an argument it must be extended in every speech. If you drop defense or offense, I am not going to evaluate it.
2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in First Rebuttal.
3. Collapse in the second half of the round. Trust me going for one arg is always better than extending 6 different contentions.
4. Don't misconstrue evidence, it's really annoying for both me and your opponents. Please share evidence in a timely manner. (If it takes an abnormal amount of time to find something, it will be dropped from the round)
5. Weighing is important but make sure you do it well. Don't just shout mechanisms at me without explaining the warranting behind them
6. I'm not familiar with progressive args, so run them at your own risk. I never ran progressive args while competing and I have very little experience evaluating these arguments. If you still want to run progressive arguments you are welcome to, but don't blame me if you don't like how I evaluate them.
Other things
1. If you say something that I know isn't true I'm probably not going to buy it.
2. I am a PF debater at heart, I am not a fan of spreading. Don't speak faster than I'm able to flow.
3. If the debate is a wash I will presume Status Quo. (This rarely happens though)
4. Don't be a jerk. If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or xenophobic then I'll drop your team.
5. It's okay to match energy in round, just try to stay civil and respectful towards everyone.
6. My debater brain has deteriorated after I came to college, so I don't particularly care about the minor technicalities.
7. I know debate is stressful, but have fun. Make jokes and laugh, I promise you the world will not end because of the results of one round.
If you have any other questions ask me before the round begins.
TLDR: Focus on warranting, extensions, and weighing and you'll do great.
Good luck with y'alls rounds!
Email: hrishika.marakani@gmail.com
Hi y’all!
My name is Claire, I did speech and debate for four years of hs and have been judging since I graduated. I competed some in PF and WSD, but my main focus was in Extemp. Here are a few things that I look for/think about when judging.
Speech:
Outside of standard fluency, I tend to evaluate content over performance for speech events. That being said, I do enjoy when speakers incorporate jokes and have good flow and appreciate when this is done well. Overall though, what’s most important to me is that a speech gives a cohesive and well formulated argument/narrative and that it is delivered with clarity with support from examples and sources.
Interp:
I love when people have energy and really commit to their performances to tell a story. I also really, really enjoy when the pieces are well cut together and the story has a good flow and retains a clear message. I don’t really appreciate when a piece seems like it is just reenacting trauma for shock-value. I prefer when these stories are handled with sensitivity and when performers make an effort to make the narrative more than just the trauma itself.
Debate:
Although I’ve had some experience with debate in the past, I would not at all consider myself a flow judge. To get my ballot, you have to maintain a clear narrative throughout the round and keep clean extensions. You need to explain to me with clear weighing why I should vote for you over the other team. If a debate is messy andhas no clash it means I will have to do all of the work and weighing by myself. You may not like the work that I do, so you should aim to be very very clear about your comparatives. I would like to emphasize that I am not good with speed, so please just go at talking pace; if I cannot understand you I will not write it down. I don’t really understand the nuances of theory and so I don't feel comfortable voting off of it. I’m a little more of a traditionalist with PF and think it should be easily understandable and accessible.
This should go without saying but I do not tolerate racism, sexism, bigotry etc. in rounds. I will call you out and dock speaks/ranks.
Background: I’m a second-year Journalism major at the University of Texas at Austin. I did 2 years of Congress and 2 years of PF at Vista Ridge High School.
PF
Argumentation
-
2nd rebuttal should be frontlining
-
Extensions, extensions, extensions
-
Weigh as early as you have time for and make sure that it’s comparative. I want clear warranting as to why I should vote for one impact over the other, not just name-dropping random weighing mechanisms
-
I won’t vote on theory unless there’s an actual reasonable violation in round, so no disclosure, paraphrasing, etc
-
I will vote for substance over any theory or progressive argument. Treat me like a lay judge when it comes to any progressive arguments
-
It’s really up to you, but I prefer line-by-line in summary and voters in FF
-
Definitely frame the round and WEIGH in summary
-
I’m listening during cross but won’t vote on anything
Evidence/Speed
-
Add me to the chain: raiyanshaik22@gmail.com
-
Don’t just ask for multiple pieces of evidence for the purpose of prep
-
I’m generally ok with speed as long as you’re speaking clearly, but if you’re going to spread send me a doc
-
Be respectful. I will lower your speaks if you’re rude or excessively aggressive during CX
I will immediately vote you down if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
Congress
-
Do not just give multiple sponsorship speeches in a row. After the first speech, your speeches should be interacting with the arguments before
- do not repeat arguments from prior speeches unless you're specifically adding something new to the conversation and acknowledging that you're doing so
-
If you’re giving one of the last speeches of the round, crystallization is preferred
-
Clear cited evidence
Johnathen_standifer@roundrockisd.org
But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward.
General:
Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school. (mostly LARPing/K in LD)
I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it. Don't just read a trick in the constructive and drop it and expect me to flow it. extend that stuff and make it a voting issue.
I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.
LD -
Prefs -
Policy/K - 1
Theory - 2
Phil - 3
Tricks - 5
Did policy and Ld in school.
If you want me to vote on something, tell me to vote on it. I don't want to have to do the work for you, the easier you make my ballot the more likely you are to pick it up. the more you're relying on a random response in the 1ar to be flowed and evaluated by me, the less likely you are to win. I'm not that good on the flow, just being honest. Collapse into a main argument or two, if you're asking me to do the work on evaluating between multiple meta layers, tell me how to do that work and make it easy for me.
STEALING THIS LINE because I love it: Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate
Read K's and Theory, I'll evaluate anything as long as you justify why I should care about it. I'm familiar with all the stock K's, if we're running anything fun just be sure to signpost it well and give me some solid voting issues. Make sure to hammer out why the theory arguments are actually important in the round, don't just run it tell me to vote it and leave it.
I'm fine with Policy based arguments, its the phil based ones i'm less familiar with. Fine with the basics (rawls, Kant, Hobbes) When we get outside of those, I'm totally down to evaluate them, just hold my hand a little bit more.
Tricks I'm just less familiar with. not saying I won't vote for them, just that i might....miss them? try me I guess.
PF - Don't play the "I can share this card if you want me to, oh which card was it? Hold on let me find it..." game. you read a card? Drop it in the speech drop. every other debate event is efficient with this, let's do better if we want to be taken seriously - this is one place i'll drop some speaks
Cool with K's and Theory in pf. Let's have some fun.
Policy:
Tab judge - Tech > Truth, speed is fine. If we are running any advanced K's give a good overview on how it relates to the round, i'm probably a little less familiar with them. share all evidence. Theory shells are fine.
Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a single bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.
MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite. If you're the 7th person to give me an argument and add nothing new....I don't care how good the speech is, my brain will be off.
Be competitive. this is a competition, not a friendly game of "What is every single person in the room's opinion on the topic"
Extemp - I'm usually rating structure and content over performance, If i'm not staring you down don't feel bad i'm writing about your speech and evaluating your argumentation. Time balance is important, don't try to inflate your speech time by having a huge 1st point and tiny second and thirds, etc. Performance aspects are important, but are usually second to content for me.
Interp - I am not what I would consider an interp coach, but I have coached multiple state/national qualifiers and a state finalist over the last couple of years. As a musician, I tend to look for variety in interp events, contrast in volume, tone, etc. blocking is...not something i'm great at feedback on? but I know it exists! cutting is always important to me. A well performed piece that doesn't make any sense isn't going to do well (I'm looking at you HI)
OO.Info - I am an English teacher on the side, so I'll be watching for general writing conventions more than performance aspects. (although I will 100% be watching for those as well) My comments are going to be more on structure and ideas for improvement. these events are interesting because it is YOUR writing and your voice, I enjoy them.
He/him. I am a debate coach.
Paradigm: Extemporaneous Speaking
-
Clarity and Organization: I value speeches that are well-organized and easy to follow. In extemp, it’s essential for speakers to clearly structure their main points with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Each part should flow logically and contribute to the overall argument. If a speaker’s ideas are hard to follow, this may impact their score.
-
Answering the Question: The speaker must directly address the question they were given. I look for clear, specific responses to the question and for each point to connect back to it. Speeches that veer off-topic or fail to answer the question may lose marks.
-
Evidence and Support: Strong, relevant evidence is critical in extemp. I expect speakers to provide facts, examples, or expert opinions to back up their claims. For novice level, I understand that evidence might be simpler, but effort should be made to include accurate information from credible sources.
-
Depth of Analysis: I look for critical thinking and depth in explaining why the evidence supports the speaker’s arguments. The more a speaker can connect their points and explain their relevance, the stronger their analysis will appear.
-
Delivery: Delivery includes aspects such as eye contact, vocal variety, pace, and body language. The best speakers are engaging, confident, and conversational rather than relying heavily on notes. At the novice level, minor nervousness is understandable, but a strong delivery can significantly enhance a speaker’s impact.
-
Timing: Extemp speeches are typically limited to 7 minutes, with a 30-second grace period. I will be mindful of timing, and speakers who go significantly over time may be penalized. Efficiently using time to cover all main points is crucial.
-
Overall Impression: Lastly, I look at the overall impression of the speech. This includes the effectiveness of the speaker’s message, the persuasiveness of their arguments, and their confidence in presenting. A strong extemp speech leaves a lasting impression.
Speech Points Assignment Policy (100-Point Scale)
Starting Score: 90 points
Adjustment Range: +/- 10 points based on performance in key areas
Core Criteria and Adjustments
-
Content and Organization
- Clarity of Points: If the speech has clear, organized points, add +2. If the points are unclear or lack organization, deduct -2.
- Answering the Question: If the speaker directly answers the question, add +1. If they stray off-topic or don’t address the question effectively, deduct -1.
-
Evidence and Support
- Quality of Evidence: If the speaker uses strong, relevant evidence, add +2. For limited or weak evidence, deduct -2.
- Depth of Analysis: If the speaker connects evidence well and provides solid analysis, add +2. For superficial analysis, deduct -2.
-
Delivery
- Eye Contact: If the speaker maintains good eye contact with the audience, add +1. For limited eye contact, deduct -1.
- Vocal Variety and Pace: For clear, engaging vocal delivery, add +2. If the speech lacks variety or is difficult to follow due to pacing issues, deduct -2.
- Body Language: If confident and natural, add +1. For overly stiff or distracting movements, deduct -1.
-
Timing
- Adherence to Time Limits: If the speaker stays within the time limit, no change. If they exceed the time significantly or are much too brief, deduct -2.
-
Overall Impression
- Impact and Engagement: If the speech is memorable and engaging, add +2. For lack of engagement, deduct -2.
- Audience Connection: If the speaker connects well with the audience, add +1. If not, deduct -1.
Final Score Ranges
- 96-100: Exceptional performance. Clear, engaging, well-supported speech with minimal areas for improvement.
- 90-95: Strong performance with minor issues. Answered the question with solid evidence and good delivery.
- 85-89: Competent but needing improvement. Some issues in organization, evidence, or delivery affected the overall impact.
- Below 85: Needs significant improvement. Major issues with clarity, evidence, or delivery impacted the effectiveness.
Debate Paradigm Overview
As a judge, I prioritize debates that promote educational growth and critical thinking, using a discourse analysis paradigm to evaluate the arguments presented. I assess the round based on how debaters use language and narratives to shape perceptions, question or reinforce societal norms, and engage with power structures. I encourage debaters to be mindful of the rhetorical choices they make and to critically engage with the implications of their discourse, aiming not just for persuasive arguments, but also for those that contribute meaningfully to understanding and addressing deeper societal issues.
Novice Paradigm
In novice debates, I prioritize the quality and clarity of argumentation over the number or source of cards read. While evidence is important, what matters more to me is how well you explain and contextualize your arguments, engage with your opponent’s points, and clearly communicate your position. I reward logical reasoning, effective analysis, and direct clash over simply citing sources. In other words, focus on making coherent, well-explained arguments rather than just reading evidence verbatim. Remember, a well-reasoned explanation often carries more weight than a pile of unread or poorly explained cards.
If you don’t fully understand an argument, use your Cross-Examination (CX) or Points of Information (POIs) to ask the other team to clarify it. If they are unable to explain their evidence or arguments in their own words, I will likely discount that argument. Reading cards without understanding them undermines effective communication and critical engagement. Debate is not just about citing sources; it’s about comprehending and articulating your position clearly. If you can't explain it, don't expect me to weigh it.
Evaluation Criteria
-
Framework/Standards: I evaluate the round based on the framework or criteria established by the debaters. If no framework is given, I default to a discourse analysis approach, focusing on the language and narratives employed in the debate and their potential to shape perceptions, reinforce or challenge power structures, and influence societal norms. Debaters should clearly articulate why their framework should be preferred and how their arguments contribute to or critique the dominant discourse.
-
Argumentation: I value logical consistency and well-developed arguments. Evidence is important, but how you explain and weigh it matters more. Assertions without warrants hold little weight.
-
Impact Calculus: Weighing is crucial. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. If you don’t weigh impacts, I will have to do it myself, which might not work in your favor.
-
Clash and Rebuttals: Direct engagement with the opposing side's arguments is essential. Point-by-point refutation is good, but it’s even better if you can link arguments back to the bigger picture and show how they interact.
-
Delivery and Persuasion: While I don't weigh style over substance, clear communication and persuasive rhetoric can enhance your argument. Avoid spreading if you can't do it clearly—I won't vote on what I can't understand.
Specifics
-
Speed: I am comfortable with a moderate pace, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I miss an argument because of speed, it’s on you.
-
Theory and Kritiks: I’m open to theory and kritiks but prefer if they are well-explained and accessible. If you run them, make sure they’re more than just jargon and clearly explain the link, impact, and role in the round.
-
Topicality: I’ll vote on T if it's well-executed and the standards are clear. Explain why the debate should be framed a certain way and how the violation impacts the round.
-
Evidence Challenges: I will consider challenges if there are blatant misrepresentations. Integrity matters, but I’m not looking to get bogged down in debates over card-cutting practices.
-
Speaker Points: I reward organization, clarity, and effective argumentation. I penalize rudeness, excessive hostility, and poor time management.
-
Burdens: I expect debaters to not only establish and fulfill their argumentative burdens but also critically engage with the implications of their rhetoric and narratives. If a side fails to justify the use of certain discourses or does not adequately address the impact of their language on societal perceptions and power dynamics, it will significantly affect my evaluation of their arguments.
-
Presumption: In cases where neither side meets their burden of proof or the arguments are equally balanced, I will default to presumption, which in a discourse analysis framework means siding with the position that least reinforces harmful or oppressive narratives and maintains a more critical and reflective stance. If a team fails to address the implications of their rhetoric or perpetuates problematic discourses without justification, presumption may work against them.
-
Disclosure: While I appreciate good faith disclosure practices, I do not require it for a fair evaluation; however, lack of disclosure may affect my assessment of arguments like theory or fairness claims.
-
Role of the Judge: I view my role as an impartial evaluator committed to fostering a fair and educational debate environment. While I will not intervene in the round, I will critically engage with the arguments presented, considering not only their logical coherence but also their broader societal implications. My goal is to provide constructive feedback and support a debate experience that promotes both strategic thinking and critical reflection.
-
Use of Cross-Examination (CX) and Points of Information (POIs): I place a high value on effective use of CX or POIs as they demonstrate active engagement and a deeper understanding of the arguments in play. Use these opportunities to clarify complex points, challenge inconsistencies, and strategically advance your position. Clear and respectful questioning or points can significantly enhance the depth of analysis and clash in the round.
-
Approach to New Arguments in Later Speeches: Introducing new substantive arguments in later speeches limits the opposing side’s ability to respond and detracts from the fairness of the debate. I generally disregard these arguments unless they are direct responses to issues newly raised by the opposing team. Focus on crystallizing and extending existing arguments instead of introducing new ones, and use the time to engage in deeper analysis and weighing.
-
Weighing Mechanisms and Comparative Analysis: Effective weighing and comparative analysis are crucial for decision-making. Beyond telling me why your impacts matter, explain why they matter more in the context of the round. Use frameworks like probability, magnitude, and timeframe to weigh competing impacts clearly and persuasively. I value a well-structured impact calculus that ties back to your framework and the round’s central issues.
-
Debater Conduct and Respect: I expect all participants to maintain a high level of respect and professionalism throughout the round. Aggressive behavior, personal attacks, or derogatory language are not acceptable and will negatively impact your speaker points. Debate is not just about winning arguments but also about fostering a collaborative and respectful space for intellectual growth and meaningful discourse.
Conclusion
I’m here to reward strong, logical argumentation and effective engagement. Keep it clear, make your arguments accessible, and tell me why you win within the framework you’ve established. I'm looking forward to a great round!