Cedar Ridge Raiders Invitational
2023 — Round Rock, TX/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
email for email chains:
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, for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of an ld/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
ie: do what you need to do, all topics can be super interesting, but make sure to always be aware of your surroundings and give proper trigger warnings
feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!
Competed in PF at Wylie High School in Wylie, Tx for 2 years.
Currently I'm a Sophomore at UT Austin.
Add me to email chain: email@example.com
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.
1) I'm fine with speed but not full spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast.
2)tech > truth
3) please weigh
4) 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.
5) summaries are 3 minutes now – defense isn't sticky.
6) Offense you want me to vote on should be in both summary and final focus.
7) I will ALWAYS prefer logical analysis and warranting over unwarranted evidence.
8) no independent offense in second rebuttal.
9) Framing is cool but please warrant it.
10) I expect you to go line by line in every speech.
Some other things:
- 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 good Counter Plan or a Kritik with a good Alternative. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you 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. Evidence sharing is not "off the clock" and will count toward prep and/or speaking time. 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.
LD - If I'm being honest, 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. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you 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. Evidence sharing is not "off the clock" and will count toward prep and/or speaking time. 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.
PF - I see PF as a watered down CX debate 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 providing 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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-Flow before the round starts
- Create the email chain before round starts, my email is linked below.
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.
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!
treat me like a lay judge please.
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.
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 never really learned progressive argumentation, so think of me as a lay judge when it comes to that and run it at your own risk
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
Add me to the chain: email@example.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.
I'll boost your speaks if you bring me candy or food
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
Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school, and run a PF team now as a coach.
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.
I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments, HOWEVER I need you to demonstrate to me that you understand them and why they are important in the round, AND I need you to maintain arguments throughout the round and keep the flow updated.
Don't just throw a trick in the first speech ignore it 'til the end and tell me to vote for you. <_<
He/him. I am a debate coach, but I didn’t debate competitively in high school or college. I emphasize the importance of education in debate, specifically in preparing students for engaging in the democratic process.
Before teaching, I worked in state government. I prefer a "Policymaking Paradigm" where I try to see myself as a policy maker that is depending on your advocacy to influence me to make a decision one way or the other. I do skew towards "truth" insofar as I allow myself to access knowledge about the world that I already hold. However, I try to be as low-intervention as possible and if the other team doesn't point out your errors then I try not to bring in my own bias to discount the argument.
I don't flow CX, but I want to see that you are asking good questions. Prove to me that you know your material.
If you make arguments that exhibit implicit prejudice or are explicitly discriminatory in any way, I will tank your speaker points and you will lose the round.