Cedar Ridge Raiders Invitational
2023 — Round Rock, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.
I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.
Tech > Truth here. Add me to the chain and I will vote on pretty much anything.
Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.
I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.
My name is Patricia Calel (She/Her).
John Paul Stevens '23
UT Austin '27 (Finance and Management )
I have experience in Congress, PF, and CX.
I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain:firstname.lastname@example.org
I am fine with you speaking with an ipad or laptop for accessibility purposes.I believe that being discretely anti-technology in congress is ableist, so if this is an accommodation you need it will not harm your ranking. With that being said, you should still not be reliant on reading off of whatever it is you bring up with you to speak.
As a judge, I approach Congress debate with an open mind and a keen ear for well-reasoned arguments. I value articulate speakers who engage substantively, showcasing thorough research and a grasp of the issues at hand. Clarity, delivery, and the ability to respond to opponents' points effectively are key factors in my evaluation. I appreciate respectful discourse and logical persuasion over mere rhetoric. Originality and adaptability are also essential; I encourage speakers to bring fresh insights to the table while addressing opposing viewpoints. Ultimately, I aim to reward thought-provoking contributions that contribute to a productive debate environment.
Vista Ridge '22 I UT '26
I competed for two years in LD and for 2 years in PF in high school.
- Put me on the chain please: email@example.com
- feel free to ask me any questions you may have
I am a tech over truth judge which means I'll buy whatever argument is argued the best. For example, in the context of the round, I will believe the earth is flat if you can effectively prove to me so.
- Well-run frameworks are valuable, preferably introduced and expanded upon in earlier speeches; if no framework is given I will default to util
- I do not necessarily evaluate CX heavily but please keep it respectful and productive for your sake
- In the 2nd rebuttal, establish a framework or the beginning of one; don't just re-extend, address and engage with opponents' arguments.
- Defense isn't sticky, so extend; The summary should go beyond repetition, interact with opponents' arguments, and focus on key arguments for the round.
- In the FF, narrow down the round to 1 or 2 key voters with thorough extensions; overcomplicating weakens arguments.
- If running progressive arguments, adapt them to the format of the debate and ensure clarity; speech docs are appreciated.
- I am comfortable evaluating K's, just make sure they fit into the format of the debate and maintain clarity.
- If you run theory as a sole voting issue, persuade me to drop the debater; abusive or unfair theory won't be rewarded.
- Weigh your arguments, especially with conflicting evidence. Please do not make me have to interpret your evidence for you.
- Be respectful to everyone in the round.
- Any racist, homophobic, discriminatory, and/or derogatory speech will not be tolerated and will automatically result in me voting you down with 25 speaks.
enjoy debating y'all!
Hello, I am Juan Cruz from Bryan High School.
I am a parent judge, but have judged on and off for about a year. I am, however, new to "progressive" styles of debating. So keep that in mind.
I prefer clear speech, some speed is ok but spreading is hard to flow and not desirable.
I understand traditional debate a lot more than progressive style debate.
I think that truth>tech but i agree that clash is important.
Typically I am an LD Tech judge, but I am comfortable judging a multitude of events and I'll list paradigms for each of them below. I have competed competitively in LD, CX, Extemp, and Congress, but I also judge PF.
LD- Speed is fine as long as you always share your docs with me and your opponent and slow town on the tags. I am fine with essentially any argument you want to run as long as they aren't offensive to your opponent or any group of people. I also don't like tricks debate and am very unlikely to vote on it. I am cool with flex prep as long as your opponent is as well. As for speaks, I find them to be archaic and a poor way to break ties when breaking, especially when compared to opponent win loss record. I'll typically just give 29s to everyone if I can, unless you are exceptionally well spoken or exceptionally poor, in which case you'll get a 30 or 28 respectively. I'll only give lower than a 28 if you are rude, degrading, or offensive.
K- I am well versed in almost all forms of debate, but I'm an a little less knowledgeable in areas of kritical debate that don't deal with well established philosophers (deleuze, baudrillard, foucault) or preexisting kritics in the debate space or topic lit (cap, fem, bio power, abelism, afro pec). If you choose to read a k that isn't super well known or more in depth, just make sure to really slow down on the tags and give a clear underview at the end, emphasizing the link and alt.
Theory/T- I vote on any shell as long as the warrants make sense and the arguments are laid out clearly, but I would much rather vote on substance instead so I slightly lean against it. I won't ever vote on friv theory that is useless and wastes my and your opponents time. I think the aff always carries the burden of topicality and I'm more comfortable voting on T that theory. I typically like counter interps and reasonability best when arguing against theory, and I will vote off of RVIs as long as there is more of a justification than just "I have to spend time on the shell".
CP- CPs are fine as long as they are well researched and explained. Picps are fine as well, though I think they run the risk of engaging in a Picps bad debate which I am comfortable voting off on if the win the shell.
Framing- I typically don't care if you read a FW or not, but I do like creative and unique framing metrics that shape the round in an interesting way.
I am most likely to vote for the person that best compares and contrasts their argument with the opponent using reasonable metrics of comparison, like probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc. Please please weigh your arguments, so I don't end up debating the round in my head for you guys.
CX- I am open to pretty much any argument you want to read, just like in LD. Most of my paradigms stack up the same way here, but I'll go more in depth on each here. Please do not read new arguments in the second half of the neg block, I will not flow any of them. Additionally, I don't love hearing completely new, complex arguments in the 2AC (i.e. a performance k in the 2AC) and won't flow them. If you're reading an extension of an argument in the 1AC or a more basic disad, case turn(s), or theory shell I will flow them.
K- Same goes as above. I am more likely to vote off of a performance k in CX than LD since there is a lot more time for either the off or neg to flesh out the k.
Theory/T- Same as in LD, though I can guarantee I will never vote off of substantial T unless it goes 100% conceded. It is a lazy argument that almost never wins rounds. I am far less likely to vote off of RVIs in CX since there is so much time that can be dedicated to the theory debate. Unfortunately, all that time also means I usually end up evaluating theory as a wash unless there is a clear winner, which there usually isn't.
CP- Same as above
Stock Issues- While I am a progressive, modern CX judge, if both teams want to debate stock issues I am comfortable evaluating that as well. I usually end up voting on inherency or topicality out of the bunch.
PF- I am a firmly traditional PF judge. I never debated PF competitively but I am familiar with the event and can judge it aptly. I think if you want to read progressive arguments in a 45 minute debate, do LD. If you want to read progressive arguments with a partner, do CX. I do not like spreading, Ks, or theory in PF. CPs and T are fine as long as they are well constructed and thought out. I typically will vote on impact debate and weighing the most, which I find extremely important in a more traditional debate setting. Speaks are the same as in LD.
Congress- While congress was not my main event I did fairly well on the state and local circuit, but I'll typically evaluate the event like any other judge. That being said, I don't like a heavy emphasis on LARPing and I prefer more of a conversational style and deep analysis. However, I will rank someone with more charisma and presence over someone with deep analysis. I don't enjoy vocal cadences and they bother me when they get too repetitive. I also dislike planned out rhetoric or AGDs that get recycled throughout rounds. Besides that, I will rank people with 2 good speeches above those with 3 poor ones, but 3 mediocre speeches will outrank someone with 2 good speeches. 2 amazing speeches will trump pretty much anything else in my book, though. I rank normal POs 4th, and for each mistake the get knocked down a spot. If they do something amazing, they will advance a rank.
Extemp- Speaking quality is the same as congress, I prefer those with more charisma and presence over those with in depth analysis. I really enjoy a conversational style and good jokes, especially meta ones about the round or extemp. Just be natural, stay conversational, and speak at least 6:30 and you'll get a good rank from me.
I'm going to provide a quick(ish) note that may seem kind of pessimistic towards debate as a whole, but I promise I still love the community and activity as a whole. The further I get away from debate, the more I feel that people treat debate as a sport or a game rather than treating each issue with the gravity that it requires. I find it pretty obnoxious that people treat each horrendous "impact" as nothing more to just weigh out rather than highlighting the humanity of each situation. Its really disheartening to see young people with such bright minds advocating for or ignoring pretty foul stuff in service of just trying to "one up" their opponent or "win the round" a lot of people who read theory spikes or counters or just reading any kind of an interp will either say "debate is a game" or "the purpose of debate is to educate". Frankly, I see these as being mutually exclusive. By treating each round as a contest to be won, I find that people often lose sight of the educational aspect that debate and the people in the community who support the activity champion so enthusiastically. That being said, I still have to pick a winner and as I've outlined above, I'm more than capable of putting my personal feeling aside and judging a tech round within the meta of whatever is being read at the time. However, don't be scared to read performance and point out the absurdity of debate, or just read any kind of performance period. Just make sure that all of your arguments, performance or not, are cognizant of what and who you are debating about, and make sure that what you argue for is both ethical, moral, and educational. At the end of the day, we should all be here to learn more about whatever the topic is this year (or couple of months or month), and I want to ensure that you aren't just reading what you think is going to "win" the round, rather read what you want to educate your fellow debaters, and especially your judges! :)
Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol
Debate is a game
K's, T, disads, theory, and any progressive args are fair ways to play
I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them
you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,
if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive
default competing interps
speed is fine
feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision
I flow real good so follow the rules
No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read extinction framing or struc vi in final
Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped
If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore
You should frontline in second rebuttal
Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary
I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech
I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess
tech pf judge
larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise
theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up
T: T is cool i guess
Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best
fine with spreading as long as I have the doc
ask specific questions if you have them!
EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with.
Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop. I've been saying for a couple years now that I cannot physical handle the top debaters speed any longer. I will not backflow or flow from doc. This is an oral activity so adjust. I am very expressive in round and you should have no issue discerning if I am with you or not. For me it is definitely that my pen times needs more time, so look periodically and you should be fine.
The older I get the more triggered I find I am when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it outspread your opponent then I am not your ideal judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time.
If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible.
I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).
This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.
I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.
A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).
If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.
Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.
In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.
I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.
I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.
I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.
If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.
If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.
If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.
I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.
I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.
Finally Word for All
I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.
Attorney, and old CX and LD competitor and judge.
Mostly a tabula rasa judge (“clean slate”) which means I don’t try and insert my opinions and beliefs into the round. If the debater says “the moon is green” then I must believe that unless the opponent says otherwise. On the other hand, if you are running a low probability argument (like Nuc War), I'm not going to be easily convince of it.
- Stock judge...I want to hear the stock issues debated...framework in LD, Topicality, Inherency, Solvency and Significance in CX.
I believe that this is a full body/mind exercise. In that vein, I expect for everyone to stand when speaking, judiciously use facial and hand gestures, as well as tone of voice, display proper etiquette (“is opponent ready?) and refrain from rude behavior.
Cross examination is a critical component of debate. In my opinion, perhaps the MOST critical, as it truly reflects the knowledge, thinking and skills of the two debaters. Students should spend almost as much time preparing for Cross as they do their constructive speeches. I expect a spirited cross.
As to LD, I don’t believe that values debate can be completely divorced from the real-world aspects of their decisions.
Spreading: Speed, tone and modulation of voice are all aspects of the art of persuasion. Vomiting out arguments in an unending, unbroken, and unmodulated stream of verbiage does NOT appeal to me.
• I presently hold the role of Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection, Texas Office of the Attorney General. I have practiced as a litigation attorney since 2008.
• My experience encompasses a background in high school debate, adjudicating law school mock trials, and mentoring novice attorneys in the art of oral argumentation.
Philosophy and Approach:
• I perceive LD debate as an opportunity for ethical and philosophical exploration.
• I advocate for debaters to delve deeply into logical discussions pertaining to the resolution.
• I prioritize a well-structured value-criterion framework.
• Debaters are encouraged to meticulously organize their arguments and engage in substantive clashes.
Evidence and Argumentation:
• Quality outweighs quantity; prioritize well-researched and logically sound arguments.
• Ensure that your arguments maintain logical consistency.
Delivery and Conduct:
• Effective communication is crucial; articulate your points clearly and maintain a reasonable speaking pace.
• Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
• My evaluation will be based on the strength of your frameworks and how effectively you uphold your value-criterion.
• The quality of your arguments, the credibility of your evidence, and the logical coherence of your case will significantly influence my decision.
• The depth of clash and the effectiveness of rebuttals are also pivotal. If a debater exclusively reads off a script for Affirmative and Negative Constructs, questions and responses during cross will more heavily influence my vote. Evading a question in cross will be considered nonresponsive. If you object to a question for reasons such as relevance, inappropriateness, complexity, double-barreled question, etc., provide a valid reason for refusal to respond. If you feel that your opponent was nonresponsive during cross, I encourage you to address it in rebuttal.
• Flex: Flexibility is valued; demonstrate adaptability to your opponent’s arguments.
• Voting Criteria: Please provide me with your clear and concise judging criteria or framework at the outset of your speeches. Your criteria should outline the key standards or principles by which you believe I should evaluate the arguments in this round. This will serve as a roadmap for how you want me to make my decision. Feel free to propose your unique judging criteria for added depth.
• Terminology: Avoid employing shorthand or jargon unless you’ve provided clear definitions. Simply naming a philosophical theory absent application to your resolution does not create sufficient framework to evaluate your argument.
• Speaks: My allocation of speaker points will be determined by clarity of communication, argumentation skills, organization, and overall persuasiveness. You do not need to stand when addressing me, but I expect adherence to professional decorum. Interrupting an excessively long or non-responsive answer is permissible. No other interruptions shall be tolerated.
• Spread: Maintain a reasonable speaking pace; excessive speed can increase the chances that I miss subtle but critical point of your argument.
• Tech vs. Truth: I encourage all debaters to maintain a balanced approach that considers both technical proficiency and the truthfulness of arguments. While it’s important to excel in debate techniques and strategies for a competitive edge, I also emphasize the ethical duty to present arguments that are honest and well-supported. LD debate provides a platform for both skill development and meaningful discourse, and I believe that it is through this equilibrium that we can collectively attain the most valuable and educational outcomes in our rounds.
Kritiks: As a judge, I value debaters who scrutinize the fundamental flaws in their opponents’ arguments by exploring the underlying assumptions, values, and ideologies. I encourage critical thinking and the examination of the broader context in which arguments are presented.
My primary objective is to provide an impartial assessment while fostering engaging and thought-provoking debates. I look forward to a rewarding round of discourse. Let’s make this an exceptional experience!
- For Extemp:
1. Make to sure to include a humorous or captivating AGD in the intro.
2. Please, provide a blanket statement corresponding with your answer to the question. Ex. "Yes, because of...."
3. 3 points of elaboration to the answer are a must.
4. I provide 3-down time signals.
5. I have extensive background in DX and FX. Additionally, I am currently a public affairs graduate student. Inaccurate statements or misrepresented statistics will be reflected in your rank.
For Debate events:
1. Don't spread. Speak clearly. Spreading will ensure that at most, you'll receive 28.5 speaker points.
2. I judge based on the flow. With that being said, I evaluate impacts above all else. If you extend and cogently argue your biggest impacts, you'll likely win.
Make my decision-making easy. The value/voting criteria create the framework for the round. Tie your argument back to this framework and explain to me why your side more clearly fulfills the superior value position.
Line-by-line argumentation first, but summarize at the end and explain why you win the round.
Talk fast at your peril. I won't stop you, but aggressive spreading for the sake of fitting more into the round or overwhelming your opponent won't do you any favors.
Welcome to my debate dissertation.
John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math)
I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate).
I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.
I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.
The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.
The long version:
Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.
Controversially, I am fine with you speaking with an ipad or laptop for accessibility purposes. I believe that being discreetly anti-technology in congress is inequitable, so if this is an accommodation you need it will not harm your ranking. With that being said, you should still not be reliant on reading off of whatever it is you bring up with you to speak.
Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious and more specific parts of congress.
I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.
Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:
I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.
I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.
Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.
I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)
Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.
Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!
It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.
I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.
LD (and policy):
I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...
I vote for bad arguments all the time.
I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down on anything that isn't on the doc
I’m trying to become a fully tab judge robot that evaluates debates with no intervention or bias. I know I am delusional.
For your prefs:
T/Theory - 1
I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps
The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.
I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD
It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc :)
K - 1
If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.
I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate
I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, I’m here for it
I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often
I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.
(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess
Assume I know nothing about anything else
There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.
Trad - 3
I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).
LARP - 3
I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time
Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way
Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself
I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler
Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame
Phil - 3
Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me
I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.
Comparative world > truth testing
Presumption affirms < presumption negates
Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates
I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:
The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.
PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my perception, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).
Collapse in summary!
A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.
The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.
I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.
Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it
I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot quicker and more technical.
I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:
I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.
Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks.
I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity to say the least.
Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.
Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.
Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.
Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.
I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.
I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.
Good luck and fun debating!